Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London and North Eastern Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Consideration deferred till To-morrow.

London Midland and Scottish Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

RATING AND VALUATION.

Mr. GUY: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider introducing legislation for the reform of the rating system in Scotland?

Mr. TRAIN: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has yet considered the memorial on local rating and valuation presented to him by the National Federation of Property Owners and Factors of Scotland and the Property Owners' and Factors' Association, Glasgow, Limited, calling attention to the prejudicial effects of the Scottish rating system upon rents, new house building, and industry in general; and whether he proposes to investigate the existing systems of valuation and rating in Scotland with a view to reform?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOT-LAND (Sir Archibald Sinclair): I have received the memorial referred to which is having my attention. As regards the second part of the question, I understand that the Scottish National Development Council has appointed a very representative committee to investigate this matter, which I notice is also being inquired into by a sub-committee of the Association of
Local Lands Valuation Assessors of Scotland, and I propose to await the results of these inquiries.

Mr. GUY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, under the existing system whereby there are two sets of rates—owners' and occupiers' rates—the tenant has to pay more in rents and rates than he would have to do if a single set of rates were adopted?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: This is a very complicated question which was inquired into in 1921 by a very authoritative committee under the chairmanship of Lord Dunedin, and they reported that as rents had long been fixed upon the assumption of the existence of such rates, it was not advisable to depart from this method of rating. I mention that because there is another side to the case which the hon. Member put in his question, and it is precisely those difficult issues which are to be inquired into by the committee which I have mentioned.

Mr. GUY: Is it not true in this particular case that the English system is better than the Scottish system?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: That is exactly what Lord Dunedin's Committee reported upon, that the Scottish system on the whole suited Scottish conditions best.

HOUSING.

Mr. GUY: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the annual wastage of houses in Scotland caused by demolition, closing orders, fire, etc., for the years 1929, 1930, and 1931?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): According to returns received from local authorities by the Department of Health for Scotland, the numbers of houses which were the subject of demolition or closing orders, or other similar procedure for securing closure under the Housing (Scotland) Acts, in the years 1929, 1930 and 1931 were 3,087, 2,295 and 2,982, respectively. In addition, considerable numbers of houses were demolished or closed under Improvement Schemes framed in terms of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1925, but details of the numbers of such houses for the years in question are not available. I have no information as to the wastage caused by fire or other causes.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is yet in a position to state the result of his inquiry into the position of over 40 tenants at Commercial Road, Glasgow, who are threatened with eviction from their homes owing to the Glasgow Corporation having decided to clear this area; and if the corporation are providing alternative homes?

Mr. SKELTON: I am informed that the Glasgow Corporation have resolved to offer alternative accommodation to the family occupants of the property at 89–91, Commercial Road, Glasgow, but that no action is proposed for the rehousing of the other persons at present residing there.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that some of these people are elderly couples with no families, cannot the hon. Gentleman make further representations to the Glasgow Corporation to reconsider their decision, as it is a terrible hardship to people who have been there for a number of years to be turned on to the streets?

Mr. SKELTON: I will consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend, but I think that he will agree that so far the corporation have acted with great consideration towards the families. Whether there are certain special classes as opposed to single persons, I do not for a moment know, but I will see what can be done.

POOR RELIEF (TEST WORK).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is now the position with regard to the inquiry he has made into the question of the able-bodied poor at Montrose being asked to do test work; and what steps he has taken to stop this practice?

Mr. SKELTON: I am not in a position to add anything to my reply on this subject given to the hon. Member on the 2nd instant. As I then indicated, I am awaiting the decision of the public assistance committee of the county of Angus. If my hon. Friend will put down a question for this day fortnight, I think I shall be able to give him an answer.

FISHING INDUSTRY.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what
steps are being taken to bring the fishing industry of Scotland into a paying position?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The Government have in many directions afforded assistance to the fishing industry in all its branches; and the hon. Member will find particulars in the forthcoming report of the Fishery Board for Scotland. The Government will continue to give the industry whatever assistance is practicable in dealing with the special problems and difficulties with which it is faced.

Mr. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform me when the report is likely to be published?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I cannot give the hon. Member a date, but it will be quite soon.

Mr. MACLEAN: Since there are two days for Scottish Votes, one this week and one, I expect, next week, can the right hon. Gentleman inform me whether the report will be ready for the second day next week?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am afraid I cannot inform the hon. Member, but I can assure him that I will do my utmost to get it out at the earliest possible date.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is it not a fact that the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society has done much more for this industry than the Scottish Office?

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: May I take it that, of course, the right hon. Gentleman agrees that a 10 per cent. duty would be much more helpful than anything which has been done for the fishing industry?

OMNIBUSES (FREE PASSES).

Mr. MAXTON (for Mr. KIRK-WOOD): 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the practice of certain omnibus companies in Scotland issuing free passes to chief constables and county councillors in their areas enabling them to travel free on the omnibuses: and whether, in view of the fact that chief constables and local authorities may be called upon to deal with omnibus companies contravening regulations, he will take steps to stop this practice?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I have no information on this subject so far as county
councillors are concerned. As regards chief constables, I am not aware to what extent (if at all) such free passes are held by them, but in my view it is undesirable that police officers should travel free of charge, or at special fares, on omnibus services other than those run by a local authority.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the ratification of the Washington Hours Convention will be one of the subjects considered at the Ottawa Conference?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): So far as I am aware, this subject will not come under consideration.

Mr. DAVIES: In view of the fact that conditions of employment affect prices of commodities within the Empire, is it not possible to put this subject on the Agenda for the Ottawa Conference?

Mr. THOMAS: To be quite frank, I am amazed that the hon. Member should attach this importance even to the Ottawa Conference where four Dominions are concerned. I should have assumed that the ratification of the Washington Hours Convention was much more a question for the world than for the Dominions.

Mr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting, therefore, that we must wait for the world to move before the Empire moves?

Mr. THOMAS: No, I am suggesting that if the world would follow our example the world would be much better.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that the Dominions already conform to the Washington Hours Convention, and that the rest of the world is holding up its ratification?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATAL DEVOLUTION LEAGUE.

Mr. JOEL: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has been in communication with the Natal Devolution League; and if he can
give any information on the position that is arising in Natal?

Mr. THOMAS: Various communications from the Natal Devolution League have reached His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and have been communicated to His Majesty's Government in the Union of South Africa. The answer to the latter part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. ROSS: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the intense loyalty of the people of Natal who are members of the British Empire?

Mr. THOMAS: I am also aware that this is a matter which affects the Dominions, and I never interfere with the business of other people.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

GERMANY (EXPORTS).

Mr. COCKS: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the export surplus of Germany in the months of January, February, March, April, and May, respectively?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): In the separate months January to May, 1932, the value of exports from Germany, including deliveries on account of reparations, exceeded that of imports in millions of reichsmarks by 10.1.3, 97.0, 163.4, 54.0 and 95.8, respectively. The figure for May is provisional.

CUSTOMS BARRIERS.

Mr. MARTIN: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider making representations to the French Government that it would be of advantage to this country and to France to lower the Customs barriers which operate against the exports of the French luxury trades to this country and the export of British coal to France?

Mr. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): My hon. Friend's suggestion has been noted.

Mr. MARTIN: Does the answer mean that the House can take it that His Majesty's Government are not in agreement with the policy of the removal of mutually disadvantageous restrictions?

Mr. COLVILLE: It has been announced that such bargains could not be undertaken before the Ottawa Conference, but the suggestion of my hon. Friend in this regard has been noted.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: May we take it that as soon as the Ottawa Conference has been concluded, negotiations will be entered into in this direction?

Mr. COLVILLE: Many countries are anxious to enter into negotiations with us.

Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand that the mining class is to be starved until the Ottawa Conference takes place?

Mr. REMER: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that in no circumstances will the Silk Duties be used as a bargaining power?

GERMANY (BRITISH COAL QUOTA).

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the descriminatory action against British coal going into Germany restricting the amount entering German ports to 100,000 tons per month, he will consider the advisability of using the powers under the Import Duties Act to restrict the inflow of German products coining into this country?

Mr. COLVILLE: I would refer to the answer given yesterday by my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Martin), in which he announced that he was receiving a deputation from the Mining Association on this subject and that the question of what action should be taken in the matter must be reserved for further consideration following on this interview.

Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand that action is going to be taken after the interview, and before the Ottawa Conference?

Mr. COLVILLE: I cannot say anything further, because the interview takes place this week and, as was intimated yesterday, the question of what action should be taken in the matter must be reserved for further consideration.

Mr. BATEY: Are we to take it that we have not to wait until the Ottawa Conference, and that action, will be taken after the interview?

Mr. COLVILLE: This does not depend on the Ottawa Conference in any way.

EXCHANGE RESTRICTIONS.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is now proposed to establish some form of clearing house between this country and those where restrictions on foreign payments are now in existence?

Mr. COLVILLE: The examination of this question is not yet concluded, but I shall make a statement as soon as possible.

Mr. RAMSDEN: Is the hon. Member aware that these restrictions of foreign exchange are having a very adverse effect on British exports, and does he contemplate any action being taken to give our nationals a fairer chance than they have at the present time?

Mr. COLVILLE: Yes, Sir, I am aware of those considerations, and I will make a statement 'as soon as I can.

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES (REGISTERED OFFICES).

Captain STRICKLAND: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that all legal process connected with a limited liability company has to be served at the registered office, he will consider the advisability of inserting in any amending legislation a provision insisting that the address of the registered office shall appear on all note-paper, invoices, and other issues used by a limited liability company?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir; this and other suggestions will certainly be considered.

EXPORTS (DOMINIONS' PREFERENCES).

Miss CAZALET: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the figure of the total value of the Preferences given by the Dominions to the United Kingdom on our exports to them since these Preferences were first granted?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The calculation asked for by my hon. Friend could only be obtained with a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour.

WELSH COAL (HAGUE AGREEMENT).

Mr. YOUNG (for Mr. RICHARD EVANS): 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement defining the attitude of the Government to the proposal of the Italian Government to discuss at the Lausanne Conference the suspension of that part of The Hague agreement relating to the purchase of Welsh coal for State purposes?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Isaac Foot): No such proposal has been made by the Italian Government so far as His Majesty's Government are aware.

ARMS (EXPORT).

Mr. HANNON: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what licences for

STATEMENT showing material covered by export licences issued for China and Japan during the period 1st January, 1932, to 31st May, 1932.


Month.
China


1932.



January
…
…
…
 6,614 lbs. cordite.






 2 sets components for .303" machine guns.






1 7 .92 m.m. machine rifle.






1 bomb rack and sight.






1 gun camera and sight.


February
…
…
…
110,231 lbs. T.N.T.






2 .303" machine guns.






8 interrupter gears.






2 sets bomb carrying gear.






8 aircraft gun mountings.


March
…
…
…
500,000 . 303" rifle cartridges.






505,000 .303" machine gun cartridges.






50,000 Prideaux clips.


April
…
…
…
23 .303" machine guns.






15,433 lbs. cordite.


May
…
…
…
12 .303" machine guns.






6 12.7 m.m. machine guns.






6,000 12.7 m.m. machine guns cartridges.






150,000 13 .2 m.m. machine gun cartridges.






2,000,000 .30" Mauser pistol cartridges.






18 belt-filling machines, for /" machine guns.


Particulars for Japan for the months, January to April, were given in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) on 30th May [OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 842, Vol. 266]. In May a licence was issued for 38 aircraft gun mountings to Japan.

GLOVES (IMPORT).

Sir BASIL PETO: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the increase of approximately 50 per cent, in the importation of foreign leather and fabric gloves for the month of May, as compared with April, since the removal of the protection afforded by the Abnormal Imports Duty of 50 per cent.; and whether, in view of

the export of arms from this country to Japan or China have been granted this year to the latest available date?

Mr. COLVILLE: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the quantities of the material in question for which export licences have been issued up to the end of May.

Mr. HANNON: Does that show that there is no foundation for the allegation that indiscriminate licences are being given to export arms from this country to the Far East?

Mr. COLVILLE: All these applications are examined very carefully.

Following is the statement:

the position of the industry in this country, he can give any indication as to when he will be in a position to issue a further Statutory Order?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): Yes, Sir. I am aware of the increase in importations. My right hon. Friend cannot, of course, make an Order increasing a duty except
upon a recommendation from the Import Duties Committee. The committee have given public notice that applications in respect of gloves are before them.

Sir B. PETO: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that an immense increase of importation from Czechoslovakia is only held back because of the dread of the exporters of an increase in the tariff; and is he aware that if there is not an early decision in this matter a fresh flood of importations will come in at low prices?

Major ELLIOT: I am sure that those considerations will be before the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

Mr. LEONARD: Is it also the case that much of the material supplied to the Czechoslovakia factories comes from the Midlands of England?

Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman convey the substance of this question and the reply which he has given to the Imports Duties Advisory Committee?

Major ELLIOT: No, Sir. The Import Duties Advisory Committee are closely in touch with all these matters and representations have been made directly to them.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Is it not understood that this committee is to be free from political pressure?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

RETIRED OFFICERS (EMPLOYMENT, WAR OFFICE).

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 26.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the number of Army officers retired who are now employed at the War Office and are in receipt of pay plus pension; and what the annual cost to the country is?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The number of Army retired officers employed in the War Office in receipt of Army retired pay is 32. The amount of their retired pay is approximately £7,000.

Sir B. FALLE: Will the hon. Member restrict as much as possible the employment of these retired officers as the cost is unnecessary?

Mr. COOPER: The cost is no higher than it would be if the work were done by anyone else. Somebody has to do the work that they are doing, and if they are qualified to do it, I do not see why they should not be employed as well as anyone else.

MEDICAL SERVICE.

Mr. THOMAS WILLIAMS: 27.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what military hospitals have been closed during the past five years; what hospitals are now occupied and where they are situated; and whether he will make a statement on the reorganisation of the Royal Army Medical Service?

Mr. COOPER: As the answer is somewhat long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, send him the information for which he asks in the first two parts of the question, together with a statement recently issued regarding the reorganisation of the Medical Services of the Army.

Brigadier-General NATION: Can the hon. Member say how many additional Majors-General are involved in this reorganisation of the Royal Army Medical Corps?

Mr. COOPER: I think the hon. and gallant Member will find that information in the statement that I am issuing in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

HOUSEHOLD CAVALRY (BARRACKS).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 28.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office for what reason it has been decided that the regiment of Household Cavalry stationed at Regent's Park barracks is in future to be accommodated in Hyde Park barracks; the estimated cost of making the necessary alterations; and whether the staff in occupation are to be transferred to other quarters?

Mr. COOPER: The reason for this decision is to facilitate administration and guard-mounting duties. The estimated cost of the alterations to Hyde Park barracks is £3,500. It is hoped to find War Department accommodation for the whole of the staff now in occupation of Hyde Park barracks.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Member say why the Household Cavalry were removed from Hyde Park to Regent's Park
and what is the real reason why they are now being transferred back to Hyde Park? Does he regard it as sound economy to be removing different regiments backwards and forwards in this manner?

Mr. COOPER: I have given the real reason why they have been moved back to Hyde Park barracks. They moved out because at the time, shortly after the War, from the point of view of administration and the number of the Household Cavalry, the accommodation was better at the Regent's Park barracks, but they can now be fitted in at Hyde Park barracks, and that is why they are being sent back.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Member say where the troops now stationed at Hyde Park barracks are to be moved, and the estimated cost of the reorganisation that is taking place?

EGYPT (FORCES).

Mr. McENTEE: 29.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what changes have been made in the disposition of British forces in Egypt since September, 1931; where the regiments are stationed; and whether the whole cost of the British forces in Egypt is paid by that country?

Mr. COOPER: There has been no change in disposition since September last. The regiments are stationed in and about Cairo, at Alexandria and at Moascar. The whole cost is borne on Army Votes.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: 30.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consider the possibility of extending, after the age of 21, the pensions of the children of men killed in the War who are permanent invalids; and will he state the number over the age of 21, permanent invalids, who are in receipt of pension because both parents are dead?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): On 31st March last pensions had been continued in payment to 80 young persons beyond the age of 21 who were motherless as well as fatherless, and who had been certified
to be totally and permanently incapable of self-support. It is a long established principle that State liability for children should not extend at the utmost beyond the attainment of their majority, and, although an exception has been made as regards the special and limited class of young persons who become total orphans before reaching the age of 21, I cannot hold out any hope of a departure from the decision of the late Labour Government that the concessions must be limited to this class.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS.

Mr. GROVES: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the names of the two experimenters who are authorised to perform operations upon animals without anaesthetics during the year 1930 at the place No. 222 registered for vivisection, and what scientific qualifications they hold for such work?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The hon. Member will find the particulars he wants in the published return. I must add, however, that he is incorrect in stating that the persons referred to are authorised to perform operations upon animals without anaesthetics. As my right hon. Friend informed him on 10th May last, the experiments performed were feeding experiments only.

Oral Answers to Questions — FORESHORES (BOARD OF TRADE LEASES).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what profit has been obtained since 1925 in respect of the profit-sharing clause incorporated in the Board of Trade leases of foreshore under their management to local authorities; and whether, in giving this information, he will state the names of the different towns where such a profit-sharing clause exists and the amount of money derived from each of them, taking the average of the years during which this clause has been operative?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following statement shows the various Regulating Leases granted by the Board which contain the "Profit Sharing Clause" and indicates the amounts received thereunder and the yearly average.


Lessees
Date of Commencement of lease
Receipts.


Period covered and annual receipts.
Total
Yearly Average.





£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Portishead Urban District Council.
1st Mar., 1927.
Nil to 1st Mar., 1932
—
—


Prestatyn Urban District Council.
1st Mar.,1927.
Nil to 1st Mar., 1932
—
—


Borough of New Romney
1st Sept., 1927.
Year ended: Sept., 1928, £13 17s. 6d.; Sept., 1929, £32 3s. 6d.; Sept., 1930, £21 9s. 3d.; Sept., 1931, £29 0S. 3d.
96
10
6
24
2
7½





(4 years).


Dorset County Council
1st Apr., 1927.
Nil to 1st Apr., 1932
—
—


Milford Haven Urban District Council.
1st Oct., 1927.
Nil to 1st Oct., 1930. Return for year 1st Oct., 1931, not received.
—
—


Whitley and Monkseaton Urban District Council.
1st Jan., 1927.
Nil to 1st Jan., 1930. Lease cancelled as from 26th July,
1930—agreed that balance of rent should not be asked for.
—
—


Chapel St. Leonards (Lines.) Parish Council.
1st Jan., 1928.
Year ended: Jan., 1929, £1;Jan., 1930, £1 0s. 6d.; Jan., 1931, 6d.; Jan., 1932, 10s.
2
11
0
0
12
9





(4 years).


Exmouth Urban District Council.
let July, 1928.
Nil to 1st July, 1931
—
—


Borough of Bexhill
1st Oct.,1928
Nil to 1st Oct., 1931
—
—


East Riding of Yorks. County Council.
1st Sept., 1929.
Year ended: Sept., 1930, Nil; Sept., 1931, £7 12s. 6d. New lease granted 6th Aug., 1931. No return due till 1st July, 1932.
7
12
6
3
16
3





(2 years).


Glaslyn (Carnarvon) Rural District Council.
1st July, 1928.
Nil to 1st July, 1931
—
—


Tendring Rural District Council.
1st Apr., 1929.
Nil to 1st Apr., 1932
—
—


Dymchurch Parish Council
1st Feb., 1929
Nil to 1st Feb., 1932
—
—


Larne Urban District Council.
1st July, 1929
Nil to 1st July, 1931
—
—


Brean (Somerset) Parish Council.
1st May, 1929.
Year ended: May, 1930, Nil; May, 1931, £50 15s. 0d. J (2 years). Return for period to 1st I May, 1932, not yet received,
50
15
0
25
7
6





(2 years).


Fremington (Devon) Parish Council.
1st Mar., 1930.
Nil to 1st Mar., 1932
—
—


Erpingham Rural District Council.
1st Apr.,1930
Year ended: Apr, 1931, Nil; Apr., 1932, £19 18s. 6d.
19
18
6
9
19
3





(2 years).


Bideford Town Council
1st Mar.,1931
Nil to 1st Mar., 1932
—
—


East Riding of Yorks. County Council.
1st Jan., 1931
Nil to 1st Jan., 1932
—
—


Poole Corporation
1st Dec,1929.
Nil to 1st Dec, 1932
—
—


Larne Urban District Council.
1st Nov.,1931.
First return not due till 1st Nov., 1932.
—
—


Wells-next-the-Sea Urban District Council.
1st Feb.,1931.
Nil to 1st Feb., 1932
—
—





£177
7
6

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the names of those towns at which investigation of the foreshore value has now been completed; and whether he will in each case given the original rental and the new rental?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As I informed my hon. and gallant Friend on 14th June, the investigation referred to has only just commenced. No recommendations have yet been received from the Chief Government Valuer.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

WIRELESS EXCHANGES.

Mr. GROVES: 31.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the new system of wireless diffusion; whether his Department has granted licences to any local authorities to install this system; and will he state the names of the areas to which such licences have been granted and the conditions connected therewith?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Graham White): The system under which wireless exchanges are established for the reception of broadcast programmes and their distribution by wire to subscribers' houses has been in operation for several years. About 150 licences have been issued by the Post Office to companies and private individuals for the establishment of such exchanges in various parts of the country. No local authorities have applied for licences. The conditions contained in the standard form of licence are too long to be quoted in a Parliamentary answer, but I will send the hon. Member a copy of them.

COMMERCIAL TELEGRAMS (CHARGES).

Sir PARK GOFF: 32.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will, for the purpose of helping to increase employment, make the same reduced charges for telegrams used for purely commercial objects as are already conceded for Press telegrams relating to news?

Mr. WHITE: My right hon. Friend is sorry he cannot see his way to introduce the legislation which would be necessary to give effect to my hon. Friend's proposal. Apart from the practical difficulty
of discriminating between commercial and other telegrams, he would not be justified at the present time in taking any steps which would increase the loss on a service on which there is already a considerable deficit.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Would it not be better to do away with this unnecessary subsidy to the Press?

Mr. WHITE: That is a matter that could only be dealt with by legislation. My right hon. Friend has already stated in reply to a recent question that he is not prepared to introduce legislation.

Mr. HANNON: Is it necessary to introduce legislation in order to effect a change in the Post Office tariff?

Mr. WHITE: This matter is under the constant and anxious attention of my light hon. Friend. If my hon. Friend has any suggestion to make, my right hon. Friend will only be too glad to go into it with him.

Mr. HANNON: The hon. Member has not answered my question. Is the Post Office tariff subject to the discretion of the Postmaster-General or must we have legislation to change it?

Mr. WHITE: It would require legislation.

Mr. ATTLEE: Is it not a fact that specially favourable tariffs to the Press were part of a bargain made, and that that was the only way in which the telegraphs could be taken over?

Mr. WHITE: Yes.

HEAD OFFICE, LEIGH.

Mr. TINKER: 33.
asked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been drawn to the inconvenience caused to the people of Leigh through the pulling down of the old Post Office in Silk Street and the present premises not being adequate to meet the requirements; and will he press forward with the new building and in the meantime take steps to improve the temporary accommodation?

Mr. WHITE: The construction of a new head Post Office at Leigh on the site of the old building will be started this month, and it is anticipated that the new building will be completed by the end of
March next. During the building operations the work of the Post Office is being conducted temporarily in rented premises; and while my right hon. Friend is sorry for any inconvenience which may be occasioned to the people of Leigh, the hon. Member will no doubt recognise that some slight inconvenience is unavoidable in order to secure the advantages in a few months' time of a specially designed new building.

Mr. TINKER: While thanking my hon. Friend for his answer, will he ask the Postmaster-General to receive a deputation in regard to the points of inconvenience, so that they may be met?

Mr. WHITE: We shall be glad to consider that. We have not received other complaints in regard to this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCHOOL CHILDREN (ROAD CROSSINGS).

Mr. GROVES: 34.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the increasing danger to school children in crossing roads when returning home from school; whether he will arrange with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to station constables at all high road crossings; and if he will confer with the President of the Board of Education in order to arrange with local education authorities that infant school children shall be conducted by teachers, after school hours, to the constable on duty at the road-crossing in order that they can be safely escorted across the roads?

Mr. STANLEY: My right hon. Friend does not think it would be practicable, with the existing man power, to station constables at all high road crossings, and it is desired, if possible, to limit the claims made on the time of the police for duties of this kind. But he will certainly confer with the Commissioner of Police and the President of the Board of Education on the question generally.

Commander MARSDEN: Will the Government not follow the example of many of our Dominions and give authority to the school teachers to control crossings near schools at a reasonable time before the opening and after the closing of the schools?

Mr. STANLEY: That might be one of the subjects discussed on the Board of Education vote.

Commander MARSDEN: Does the hon. Member realise that this question of safety at road crossings is handed from the Prime Minister to the Secretaries of State of various Departments, who are trying to put the baby on the other one?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.

Mr. TINKER: 36.
asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been drawn to the disparity of transitional payments between Lancashire administrative county, where since 12th November 19.5 per cent, have been disallowed altogether against 8.5 per cent, for Great Britain; and if he will inquire into the causes of this disparity?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I would refer the hon. Member to the explanation given by my right hon. Friend on 22nd March in reply to his question on the subject of transitional payments statistics.

Mr. TINKER: Is the hon. Member aware that a deputation from the two chief industries of Lancashire, coal and cotton, have been to the authorities and were told that the Ministry of Labour had issued instructions from which they cannot depart?

Mr. HUDSON: I do not think that question arises out of the question on the Paper.

Mr. TINKER: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this matter at the earliest opportunity.

HOSIERY MACHINERY (FOREIGNERS).

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the hosiery firm of Messrs. Foister, Clay and Ward, of Mansfield, are employing seven Germans; and if he will state the reasons why these seven men have been allowed to come to this country for the purpose of operating hosiery machines that can be operated by unemployed hosiery workers in the district?

Mr. HUDSON: Permits were issued to this firm to employ these foreigners for the purpose of training British workpeople to operate a special type of hosiery machine obtained from Germany. The permits were for limited periods in no case exceeding six months.

Mr. BROWN: Is the hon. Member aware that this type of machinery has been operated in the district for six or seven years past and that there is no reason at all for employing these foreign instructors?

Mr. HUDSON: Our information does not bear out the hon. Member's statement. These machines were made in Germany, and these German instructors were only allowed into the country for the purpose of supervising their erection and training these employés in the use of this particular machinery.

Mr. BROWN: Will his Department take greater care in future in the granting of these licences?

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: .: On a point of Order. May I, Mr. Speaker, draw your attention to the fact that there is a well recognised rule of this House that any hon. Member who puts down a question on the Order Paper makes himself responsible for the facts contained therein? When I saw the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) last Friday, I told him that I was chairman of this company and explained to him the exact circumstances, that these foreign workmen came in temporarily and for the express purpose of training British workmen. I want to ask whether it is not an abuse of the Rules of this House that this question should appear on the Order Paper?

Mr. SPEAKER: There is a well-known rule that hon. Members who make statements in a question make themselves responsible for them, but they are not always right; they are sometimes wrong.

Mr. BROWN: May I be allowed to say, in reply to the hon. Member for New-castle-on-Tyne, North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle) that when I heard him on Friday I was unconvinced by what he had to say and. therefore, I had no alternative but to go on with the question.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it in order for an hon. Member to rise during Question
Time upon a point of Order and explain his connection with a particular company? Is it not the case that he should do it immediately after questions, and not take advantage of Question Time?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is quite in order for an hon. Member to rise to a point of Order at Question Time, and I am not sure that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has not done BO himself. If an hon. Member wishes to make a personal statement he must, of course, wait until the end of questions.

DOMICILIARY RELIEF.

Sir P. HARRIS: 42.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there is a large increase in the number of able-bodied men in London since October last granted domiciliary relief; to what extent this increase is clue to unemployment and disqualification by courts of referees of applicants for unemployment benefit; whether he proposes to sanction additional places at non-residential training centres; and whether he has any proposals to deal with the situation?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): The answer to the first part is Yes. As regards the second part, my right hon. Friend has no information as to the extent to which persons whose claims to unemployment insurance benefit or transitional payments are disallowed apply for public assistance, nor as to the extent to which applications are due to sickness and want of work or other causes. As regards the third part, arrangements made by public assistance authorities for setting to work, training and instructing able-bodied men in receipt of outdoor relief do not require my right hon. Friend's sanction, but he understands the arrangements made in London to have been recently extended and a further substantial extension to be in contemplation. As regards the last part of the question, the hon. Member must await the report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

CATTLE DISEASE, LECHLADE.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 38.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been drawn to the losses among cows in
Lechlade following an illness whose nature is not yet known; and whether his Department is making inquiries?

Captain Sir GEORGE BOWYER (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend's attention has been drawn to the losses referred to, and inquiries by veterinary officers of the Ministry confirm the views of the local veterinary practitioners that the disease is due to an acute mineral deficiency associated with lactation and parturition in cows. The disease is well known to veterinary surgeons in Great Britain and Western Europe, and my right hon. Friend is advised that it can be successfully treated if treatment is adopted on the earliest appearance of symptoms.

WAGES (TEST INSPECTIONS).

Mr. C. BROWN (for Mr. GRUNDY): 39.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many test inspections under the Agricultural Wages Act, 1924, were undertaken during the first five months of 1931 and 1932, respectively; and what arrears of wages were collected by the Board for the same period in 1931 and 1932. as a result of these test inspections?

Sir G. BOWYER: The numbers of test inspections carried out under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act during the first five months of 1931 and 1932 were 1,091 and 347, involving arrears of wages of £2,253 and £730 respectively. Part of the latter amount has only recently been claimed and has not yet been paid.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAUSANNE CONFERENCE (CLERICAL OFFICERS).

Mr. DENVILLE: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of clerical workers attached to the delegation to Lausanne and the approximate cost?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): The number of clerical officers (including shorthand-typists) attached to the British Delegation at Lausanne is 13. The cost of their accommodation and maintenance is Swiss francs 330, or, approximately, £18 a day, and their travelling expenses to and from Lausanne will amount to about £180. These officers are in receipt of their ordinary home salaries while on duty abroad.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA (RUBBER PLANTATION EMPLOYES).

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information as to the conditions prevailing among the employés dismissed from the rubber plantations in Malaya?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I understand that many of the European employés have returned to this country and that a number of those who have remained in Malaya are still in a volunteer training camp at Port Dickson, which was started in 1930. The South Indian employés have been repatriated to India.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRIES.

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of setting up a committee to examine the possibility of abolishing certain Ministries whose work could, with advantage to the public, be substantially reduced and administered by other Ministries?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): My hon. and gallant Friend will recall the statements which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made during the Debates on the Finance Bill in regard to the possibilities of reductions in national expenditure. I do not, however, think that it would be of advantage to appoint a committee for the purpose suggested in this question, and I would refer in this connection to the reply which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to my hon. Friend the Member for West Leeds (Mr. Adams) on 14th April last.

Sir B. PETO: Has my right hon. Friend in mind the fact that the late Mr. Bonar Law proposed to abolish the Ministry of Pensions in 1922, 10 years ago, and does he not think, without waiting for any further inquiry, that the care of the remaining War pensioners could be well divided between the three Service Departments?

Mr. BALDWIN: That question, together with the position of the so-called new Departments, that is the Departments created during and since the War, has been under repeated revision between
that date and the present day, and no doubt such revision will be made in the future.

Mr. MAXTON: Did not the right hon. Gentleman himself announce his decision five or six years ago to abolish two Ministries? Is not the time now opportune for carrying out that decision?

Mr. BALDWIN: That is quite true, and I regret to say that at that time further and closer examination convinced us that there was nothing in it.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (FOREIGN DEBTS).

Mr. COCKS: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount Germany has to pay annually in interest on her foreign debts apart from the question of reparations?

Major ELLIOT: The report of the Special Advisory Committee under the Hague Agreement dated 23rd December last and issued here as Command Paper 3095 estimated that the gross service of German foreign debt, excluding reparations but including the Dawes and Young Loans for the year 1932 would require between 1,600 and 1,850 million Reichsmarks. A separate figure for the total interest payment is not available, but I would refer the hon. Member to the details given on page 24 of the report showing how the figures quoted are arrived at.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXCHEQUER GRANTS).

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what provision has been made in the estimates of the current year for Exchequer grants of all kinds to the local authorities; and, in preparing these estimates, what sum was assumed to be the probable receipts from rates of the local authorities during the same period?

Major ELLIOT: The amount included in the Parliamentary estimates of the current year for Exchequer grants of all kinds to local authorities is approximately £124,300.000. This figure excludes grants from the normal revenue of the Road Fund, and a grant of £700,000 from the Consolidated Fund in respect of tithe, which do not appear in the Estimates. I regret that it is not possible to give
an estimate of the probable receipts from rates of local authorities during the same period.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: 51.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in consideration of the expenses that will be involved in the transference of the contents of the Imperial War Museum to a new site south of the Thames, where a large building would have to be internally reconstructed, he will agree to the postponement of the transference?

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The Bethlem Hospital scheme has been slowed down with a view to reducing expenditure this year, and the future programme of work will be reviewed in the Autumn when the 1933 Estimates come up for consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANADA (GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY, STOCKHOLDERS).

Sir KENYON VAUGHAN-MORGAN: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is in ft position to report the present state of the controversy arising out of the claim of the Parliament of Canada to exproriate without compensation the property rights of the perpetual preference stockholders in the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada lying outside Canada; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Mr. THOMAS: No, Sir. The matter in question is not one in which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom can intervene.

Oral Answers to Questions — RURAL COTTAGES (RECONDITIONING).

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN (for Mr. HIRST): 43.
asked the Minister of Health how much public money has been expended on the reconditioning of rural cottages under the Act of 1926; and how many buildings and cottages not previously occupied are now occupied as a result of reconditioning?

Mr. E. BROWN: The total amount paid by local authorities in England and
Wales up to 31st March, 1932, by way of grants under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts was £376,932. One-half of this amount is being defrayed by the Exchequer by annual grants towards the loan charges, the amount so paid to 31st March last being £10,530. 4,775 buildings have been converted or improved. My right hon. Friend is unable to say how many were previously unoccupied.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUEZ CANAL (GOVERNMENT SHARES).

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE (for Major Sir HERBERT CAYZER): 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of increased revenue received by the Treasury from their holding of Suez Canal shares since this country abandoned the Gold Standard, seeing that the dividends on these shares are now being paid in gold francs; and whether he will consider assisting British shipping by passing on the whole, or part, of the increase to British ships using the Suez Canal, in view of the fact that practically all vessels under foreign flags are in receipt of subsidies from their respective Governments?

Major ELLIOT: The sterling equivalent at par of the sums received by the Treasury in respect of the years 1930 and 1931 was £1,868,000 and £1,696,000 respectively. The latter figure would become £2,277,000 at the current rate of exchange. Future receipts will be influenced by such factors as the diminution of traffic owing to the economic crisis and the recent reduction by about 10 per cent. in the dues charged to all shipping. I regret that I am not prepared to adopt the suggestion in the latter part of the question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council what business is it proposed to take on Friday?

Mr. BALDWIN: The Second Reading of the Public Works Loans Bill, and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

Report stage of Navy, Army and Air Expenditure, 1930—that is the Resolutions which it is hoped to pass to-day through Committee stage.

Second Readings of the

British Museum Bill [Lords],

Agricultural Credits (Mortgages) Bill [Lords'], and

Solicitors Bill [Lords].

Report and Third Reading of the Patents and Designs Bill [Lords].

Second Reading of the Carriage by Air Bill [Lords], and, if there is time, other Orders on the Paper.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has put in the last proviso. We are not at all sure whether all this little packet can be got through on Friday or not. We must have time to examine it, and therefore I do not say, right off, whether we shall be able to assist the right hon. Gentleman in putting it through or not.

Mr. MAXTON: If time does permit of other Orders being taken, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us to which other Orders he proposes to give precedence?

Mr. LANSBURY: How far does the right hon. Gentleman propose to go to-night?

Mr. BALDWIN: We propose to take the first Order, and also the Navy, Army and Air Expenditure, 1930, Committee stage, which is the second Order and which the right hon. Gentleman knows is merely a confirmation of the action of the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In connection with the Report stage of the National Health Insurance Bill, the very first new Clause on the Paper is in the name of one of the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters, and on it will very largely depend what progress is made with the Bill. It would be convenient if he announced whether the Government intend to accept that proposed new Clause or not. If the Government accept it, the whole Report stage will be thrown out of gear and it will inevitably mean that a good deal more time will be taken. Perhaps he will let us know the Government's intention on the proposed new Clause, because on that must depend the length of the sitting to-night.

Mr. BALDWIN: I quite agree with the last part of what the hon. Member has said, but I think his question would be more suitably put when the House comes to the Report stage of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question put,

"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

The House divided: Ayes, 259; Noes, 40.

Division No. 248.]
AYES.
[3.28 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Eden, Robert Anthony
Mac Andrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Albery, Irving James
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
McKie, John Hamilton


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.)
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fermoy, Lord
Magnay, Thomas


Balniel, Lord
Fieldon, Edward Brocklehurst
Maitland, Adam


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Fox, Sir Gifford
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Ganzoni, Sir John
Martin, Thomas B.


Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Goff, Sir Park
Meller, Richard James


Blindell, James
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Borodale, Viscount
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Boulton, W. W.
Grimston, R. V.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Mitcheson, G. G.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Munro, Patrick


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Hales, Harold K.
Nall, Sir Joseph


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Harris, Sir Percy
Normand, Wilfrid Guild


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hartington, Marquess of
North Captain Edward T.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hartland, George A.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Burnett, John George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Peat Charles U.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Percy, Lord Eustace


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Heneage, Lieut. Colonel Arthur P.
Petherick, M.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hope, Sydney (Chester Stalybridge)
Peto, Sir Basll E. (Devon, B'nstaple)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Hornby, Frank
Potter, John


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Chotzner, Alfred James
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Clarke, Frank
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Ramsden, E.


Colville, John
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Rankin. Robert


Conant, R. J. E.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cook, Thomas A.
James, wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cooke, Douglas
Jamieson, Douglas
Rea, Walter Russell


Cooper, A. Duff
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Copeland, Ida
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Cowan, D. M.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Remer, John R.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Cranborne, Viscount
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Craven-Ellis, William
Ker, J. Campbell
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rosbotham, S. T.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Ross, Ronald D.


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Knight, Holford
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Rothschild, James A. de


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Law, Sir Alfred
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Leckie, J. A.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Salmon, Major Isidore


Denville, Alfred
Lees-Jones, John
Sait, Edward W.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Leigh, Sir John
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Dickie, John P.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Donner, P. W.
Levy, Thomas
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Liddall, Walter S.
Scone, Lord


Drewe, Cedric
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Duggan, Hubert John
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Dunglass, Lord
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Eady, George H.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Tate, Mavis Constance
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Train, John
Womersley, Walter James


Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir K. Kingsley


Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Stevenson, James
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Stewart, William J.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Stones, James
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)



Strauss, Edward A.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Strickland, Captain W. F.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Weymouth, Viscount
George Penny.


Sutcliffe, Harold
White, Henry Graham



NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Price, Gabriel


Buchanan, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Thorne, William James


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, George Henry
Tinker, John Joseph


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, William



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 108.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

Second Report of the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Commercial Gas Bill, without Amendment.

Bury Corporation Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.

As amended, considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Married women.)

(1) In Section fifty-six of the principal Act (which relates to married women) for Sub-sections (1) to (3) there shall be substituted the following Sub-sections:
(1) Where a woman, being an insured person and a member of an approved society, marries she shall, subject to the provisions of the next succeeding Subsection—

(a) be treated as an insured person until the expiration of two years from the date of her marriage, but not for any longer period;
(b) not be entitled during the said two years to the benefits to which she would otherwise have been entitled under this Act and in lieu thereof be entitled, subject to the provisions of this Act, to the following benefits, that is to say:

(i) sickness benefit for an aggregate of not more than six weeks in the twelve months next after the date of her marriage, and for the purposes of this paragraph the first disease or disablement in respect of which such sickness benefit is payable shall not be deemed to be a continuation of any previous disease or disablement;
(ii) a single maternity benefit irrespective of arrears in respect of her first confinement within two years from the date of her marriage;
(iii) medical benefit until the thirtieth day of June or the thirty-first day of December, whichever first occurs, next after the expiration of a period of twelve months from the date of her marriage;
(iv) during two years from the date of her marriage any additional benefits provided by her approved society in accordance with a scheme under Section seventy-five of this Act.

(2) A woman to whom Sub-section (1) of this section applies and who at any time in the period commencing at the end of the contribution week in which she marries and expiring on the expiration of two years from the date of her marriage is employed within the meaning of this Act, or becomes a voluntary contributor, shall, for all the purposes of this Act, be treated as if she had becomes insured for the first time on the date on which in the said period she is first so employed, or becomes a voluntary contributor:
Provided that—

(a) if she is so employed, whether continuously or not, during twenty-six
930
contribution weeks in the period of fifty-two contribution weeks next following that in which she marries and twenty-six contributions are paid by or in respect of her then, as respects future benefits, nothing in this Sub-section shall prevent weeks, of insurance which elapsed before the date on which she is first so employed, and contributions paid in respect of those weeks, from being taken into account for the purposes of Subsections (2) and (3) of Section thirteen and Sub-section (3) of Section fourteen of this Act;
(b) the period for which she remains insured and the benefits to which she is entitled shall not in any case be less than the period for which she would have remained insured and the benefits to which she would have been entitled if she had not been so employed or had not become a voluntary contributor; and
(c) so far as concerns additional benefits and orphans' and old age pensions nothing in this Sub-section shall prevent her being considered as remaining continuously insured and remaining continuously a member of her approved society;"

(2) In Sub-section (6) of the said Section fifty-six, for the words "after her marriage continues to be or becomes an employed contributor," there shall be substituted the words "after the end of the contribution week in which she marries is employed within the meaning of this Act, or becomes a voluntary contributor," and Sub-sections (7) and (8) of the said Section shall cease to have effect.

(3) A woman who, having married within two years before the pasting of this Act, became at any time before the passing thereof subject to the provisions of Sub-section (1) of the said Section fifty-six shall, as from the passing of this Act be treated as if this Section had been in operation at the date when she became subject to those provisions, and if the said date was subsequent to her marriage as if she had married on that date.

(4) A woman who, having married after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, but before the passing of this Act, did not before the passing thereof become subject to the provisions of Sub-section (1) of the said Section fifty-six shall for the purposes of this Section be treated as if her marriage had taken place on the date of the passing of this Act or, if she was at that date incapable of work by reason of some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement of which notice is or was given within the prescribed time, on the date on which that incapacity ceases:

Provided that, in reckoning the twenty-six weeks of employment and twenty-six contributions referred to in proviso (a) to Sub-section (2) of the said Section fifty-six (as amended by this Section) account shall be taken of any employment occurring and any contributions paid after the end of the contribution week in which she was married.

(5) This Section shall come into operation on the passing of this Act."—[Mr. H. Williams.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. Before this new Clause is moved, I want to say that it is not uncommon for new Clauses to be put down on Report, but I think it has been the common practice in the past that new Clauses put down on Report have not done what this Clause seeks to do. As far as I can see, this new Clause is practically an Amendment of the whole Bill, and I submit that a new Clause of this kind ought to be put down and debated in Committee first. While no one seeks to deny the right of hon. Members to put down a new Clause on Report, such a new Clause has usually dealt with some minor point, and I should like to ask whether it is in order to put down on Report a new Clause which seeks practically to widen the scope of the Bill to such an extent that it is not so much a new Clause as a new Measure in itself. I should like to know if it is in order on the Report stage so to extend the scope of the Bill as to make it a dissimilar Measure from that which was first introduced.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: On that point of Order. I brought this matter up in Committee at 10 minutes to three in the morning, and it was intimated privately to me that possibly that was not a very suitable time to discuss a Clause of such importance. Therefore, I moved it in very brief terms, and the Minister made the suggestion that probably, in view of its importance, it was desirable that it should be discussed on the Report stage when it could come before the House at a more convenient time. In view of that suggestion, I withdrew the Clause forthwith and put it down for the Report stage.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I should like entirely to confirm the record of fact which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), that this new Clause was put down in Committee and that, as it came on at an early hour in the morning and dealt with a new and rather separate matter, the Committee came to the conclusion that the best way of dealing with it was to leave the matter for a full discussion on Report. I do not think that
it would be fair for the Clause to receive any detriment, as it were, owing to the fact that it was postponed from that occasion to this. The merits of the Clause are a different matter, which remain for discussion at a later period, but the question was asked at an earlier stage to-day whether it was the intention of the Government to accept the Clause. I do not think that I ought to leave the House under any misapprehension: it is not the intention of the Government to accept it.

Mr. MAXTON: The point which my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) raised is a point of Order. We are not disputing the facts as stated by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and the Minister. The Clause was only formally discussed in Committee and the Minister promised that he was willing to have it discussed on the Report stage. We are now asking whether, in keeping with the practice of the House, you, Sir, regard as being in order a new Clause of this scope and magnitude which raises so-many new factors that were not involved in the original structure of the Bill, and whether it is in order on the Report stage to have such a new Clause discussed?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is rather a difficult question to decide. Had this proposed Clause appeared for the first time on the Report stage, I should have had my doubts whether I should call it or not. The House will realise that it is a very large extension of the operation of the Bill, but the fact is that it did appear on the Committee stage, which was obviously the proper time for its discussion. The fact that it was put down then and that the House dealt with it as it thought fit on the Committee stage, influenced me in my mind as to whether it was in order on the Report stage, and I came to the conclusion that that being the case, it was in order to bring it up again on the Report stage.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: Is it not a fact that the postponement of this proposed Clause at 3 o'clock in the morning was entirely due to the action of the Clydeside group in prolonging the discussion?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I speak under some disability, having regard to the fact that the judge has pronounced sentence of death before the trial, but I will do my best in the circumstances, because even if it is not accepted now, Parliament will, I think, later on find that it is necessary to deal in some way or other with the subject matter of the new and rather complicated Clause which I am moving. In law and in fact the responsibility for a wife still lies with her husband, and the whole of our discussion ought to take account of that. We are not dealing with people for whom somebody else has not a responsibility, and we have to realise that on marriage most women give up employment. They do not give up occupation. For census purposes, a married woman is not regarded as an occupied woman, because she does not work for gain but only for love. Somebody has said that that is all she gets. In fact, after marriage most women cease to be employed persons. Obviously, from an insurance point of view, they are in a peculiar position, and that they are in such a position has been recognised ever since we have had health insurance.
In the Bill, which occupied the time of this House for so long a period in 1911, and which came into operation on 1st July, 1912, there was a definite recognition of the fact that women on marriage occupied a rather unusual position. That Act had not been in operation for more than five and a-half years when an amending Bill was introduced, which came into operation in 1918. As the result of the experience gained under the operation of the Act of 1911, it was decided to make a change which involved placing' women on marriage into a special category, provided certain things happened. That category is commonly known as Class K. In 1924, under the auspices of the party opposite, a further amending and consolidating Act was passed, and that substantially continued the provisions of Class K in the same form as they were in the Act of 1918. In 1928 a Bill was introduced and became an Act which had as its principal purpose the preservation in health insurance of those people who had not been able to pay contributions because they were unemployed for long periods. That Act dealt with all classes of insured people who had suffered unemployment, and among them were women who had re-
cently become married. The concessions which were given to the whole insured population, who were then, or who might afterwards become, out of work, were by the Act of 1928 extended to women who were married within 12 months. That is the class of women we are considering to-day.
The existing Jaw with regard to women who have recently married is contained in Section 56 of the Act of 1924 which I am seeking to amend. The Act of 1924 must be read in conjunction with certain Sections of the Act of 1928. Section 12 of the Act of 1928 introduced certain amending Sub-sections into the Act of 1924. Anyone therefore who wants to appreciate the exact law on the subject must read Section 12 of the Act of 1928 as well as Section 56 of the Act of 1924. What is the present law in brief? Though the words are many, the purpose is rather easy to understand when you have discovered what the words mean. A woman on becoming married, if she ceases to be a fully employed person, falls into Class K, where she enjoys a reduced level of benefits for a period of two years. The test as to whether she ceases to be an employed person was originally the test of whether she was continuously out of work for eight weeks at any time during 12 months after marriage. In other words, if she were out of work seven weeks, and then did a couple of days' charing, she qualified to be regarded as an employed person.
The Act of 1929, which allowed people who were registered at an Employment Exchange as available for work and unable to get it, entitled them to have their cards franked so that, provided a woman could establish availability for work and inability to get work during the period when she was out of work during the first 12 months after marriage, she never lost her qualification as an insured person. It is obvious that that is a purely farcical test. Any woman who was dishonest enough could always dodge a job in those circumstances. The original test of 1924 was weakened. To put in one week's work in every eight continued qualification as an employed person. That was a farcical test. When it became possible under the Act of 1928 to have the periods of unemployment where she was available for work and not succeeding in getting it treated as if, in fact, she had been at work, it reduced the
position to a farce, and the extent of the farce is well illustrated, in my opinion, by what appears on page 6 of the Actuary's Report issued in connection with this Bill. Paragraph 13 says:
In the calculations leading to these conclusions I have given effect to a change which recent experience requires in respect of another factor in the financial basis of women's insurance. A considerably greater provision has now to be made for the heavy liabilities which result from the continuance in full insurance of those women who remain in employment alter marriage. On the best estimate which can be framed it is found necessary to assume that the proportion continuing will be about 40 per cent. greater than that originally expected.
That "originally expected" was based upon an examination of past experience. Why does it happen that 40 per cent. more remain in employment or rather in insurance, because they are not actually remaining in employment., but are keeping in insurance by exploiting the present inadequate test? If anybody wishes further confirmation, I would refer to page 414 of the Ministry of Labour Gazette of last November. Every November the Ministry of Labour publish an exceedingly interesting article relating to the count of the persons insured against unemployment. New cards are issued on 1st July, and the November number of the Gazette always contains this interesting analysis. They discovered that the number of people of both sexes in insurance had shown a very rapid increase during a period of very bad trade. It is not the case that there were really more people in work, but more people were pretending to be in work, because they were exploiting the weak provisions of two Acts of Parliament, the Unemployment Insurance Act and the National Health Insurance Act. We find this extraordinary thing. In the year 1925–26, 11.6 of all the insured women left insurance for one cause or another, marriage, no doubt,, being the main cause. In the following year there were 10.3, and the next year 10.1. That gives an average of 10.7 per cent. for those three years, the three years before the Act of 1928. Then we passed the Act of 1928, which relaxed the already weak conditions, and we had in 1928–29—down to the end of June—9 per cent., and in the following year 7.2 per cent.; and in 1930–31, the year of worst trade we have ever known, the exits of women from in-
surance, so far from being over 10 per cent., were down to 6.6 per cent.
Why should there be this retention in insurance at a time when everybody knows that it is very difficult to get a job or keep a job? If we examine those figures they show that some 110,000 to 120,000 women remained in insurance in the year which ended last June who would in fact, have passed out of insurance had normal conditions prevailed. I think the conclusion is perfectly obvious. Those women fulfilled this extraordinarily light test and remained in insurance, and as a result they extracted from the fund very large sums which properly ought to have remained in the fund, and it is in consequence of that that we are now passing a Bill which will reduce benefits which otherwise might have been preserved. It is possible, of course, that the much abused Anomalies Act passed by the late Government—I say "much abused" because I see present the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), and he has often abused it—will have a favourable reaction upon the finance of Health Insurance, because a very large number of people are insured under both Acts, and it is primarily the people insured under both Acts with whom we are dealing. I do not think domestic servants have abused the system, I have always thought the Insurance Act has made great profit at the expense of domestic servants, but it is those women who are insured against both ill-health and unemployment with whom we are mainly concerned. I imagine the effect of the Anomalies Act will be to strengthen indirectly the operative effect of the weak form of the test under the 1928 Act, though at the moment we do not know, because we have no official information to guide us.
I have endeavoured to describe the position as it is at the moment. Under the 1912 Act the people who fall out of full insurance and are transferred to Class K get a benefit, if necessary, of 12s. a week for six weeks and a single maternity benefit of 40s. Under my proposed new Clause those who come into this special class will get 10s. a week for six weeks, and the maternity benefit will be left unaffected. But what is the main purpose of my Clause? It is to propose a new test, a test not of imaginary work but of real work. The test is that
any person who puts in 26 weeks of actual work in one year after marriage is then regarded as a person who is really in employment and intending to go on working, and therefore entitled to full insurance rates. Under the existing law the woman who after marriage is really intending to go on working is in peril for 12 months so far as her insurance rights are concerned, because the eight weeks of continuous unemployment may come at any time—they may come in the last eight weeks, and she would then be transferred to Class K.
Under my Clause, if she has put in her 26 weeks—by the end of the first 28 weeks, say, allowing a fortnight for the honeymoon—she is restored to full insurance rights, and therefore under my Clause the position is better for a woman really working. Those people who are only pretending to work are definitely removed from full insurance and placed in Class K. When we consider the benefits in Class K, which will run for two years after marriage, let us see what Parliament thought they ought to be in 1918. It was then decided that they should be 5s. a week for six weeks. Under my Clause the benefit is 10s. a week for six weeks, though in the meantime the cost-of-living has fallen 25 per cent., so no one can say that my proposal is a mean proposal. In 1924 hon. Gentlemen opposite passed an Act in which they gave the lady 7s. 6d. for six weeks. Since then the cost-of-living has dropped 14 per cent., but the lady under my very generous provisions will get 10s., so we are treating her 33⅓ per cent. better in the matter of cash at a time when the cost-of-living has dropped 14 per cent. Therefore, no one can contend, and least of all the late Minister of Health who, I presume, was largely responsible for the 1924 Act, that this Clause is mean.
4.0 p.m.
When we alter the law, we have to consider the position of those whose conditions ave transitional, because one can never make a change in the law without finding a certain number of people in a transitional state. The transitional period in the case of the people we are considering extends back two years, because any woman who has married in the last two years and has already fallen into Class K is entitled to certain limited benefits for two years after her marriage. Obviously, we have to do something for those people, and my proposal is that
they shall be transferred from their old Class K to the new Class K. Next we have to consider those people who were married in the last 12 months. Those people have either fallen into Class K or have not. Those who have fallen into Class K will be dealt with in the way I have already mentioned, but those married in the last 12 months who have not fallen into Class K are still on probation, and those who were married just 12 months ago are passing out of probation. Those married in the last six months may have already qualified for the new benefits if they have been continually at work. Strictly speaking, one ought to apply the now test to all women who have married in the last 12 months, but I am told that for administrative reasons it would be difficult to apply it to those who married between July and December of last year. Therefore, I leave them unaffected, enjoying the rights and the disabilities of the existing law. But in respect of those married on 1st January and since I apply the new test. If they have already worked or if they can fulfil the 26 weeks, at once they will enjoy the full rights of insured persons. Any weeks that they may have worked since 1st January will count towards the 26 weeks in order that they can claim the right of full insurance. I hope I have adequately explained to the House the nature of the existing law and of the proposed new Clause. I am contending that on broad moral grounds there is a very strong case for the Clause. We do not want to breed up a whole lot of people who, by taking a mean advantage of the law, may deprive others of their rights. This is a contributory scheme. There may be arguments against such a scheme. I can imagine the hon. Member for Bridgeton making an excellent speech against the contributory system. But we are here discussing a contributory system, and if a penny piece under that system goes to any person improperly, in the long run if means a deprivation of the rights of others who have not abused the law.
My closest connection with friendly society work has been in the Midlands, whereat one time I was an honorary member of a good many lodges. I have been present at a great many of their gatherings, and I have always been impressed with the spirit of real sacrifice shown,
the immense pride of the man who could say, "Well, I have been a member of the society for 30 years, and I have never drawn a penny." By that he meant he had never drawn a penny of benefit. That was his pride, not how much he had got out of the society but how much he had left in. It is because we do not want to breed a great mass of young married women encouraged to exploit the system of health insurance, or any other system, that I ask the House, despite the Minister's statement, to give the most serious consideration to this proposed new Clause, which will protect the rights of every woman who has tried to treat insurance properly, while depriving those women who have taken advantage of the system.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: I beg to second the Motion.
I do not think it is necessary for me to speak at great length. I hope the issue is fairly clear, and that we will have a clear reply to it. I shall not attempt to confuse the House by giving any duplicate set of figures, after those that have already been given. When it comes down to the real issue we have definitely to recognise that we are dealing with a clear distinction between a proposal which may involve a certain number of hard cases, and the Bill as it stands, which in the opinion of those qualified to judge will still leave the insurance system as a contributory system not yet safe and sound. With regard to the hard cases, the proposal is definitely that every woman on marriage has to go into Class K, and within 26 weeks she will again, with proper contributions if she is employed, be entitled to full benefits. During those 26 weeks what is her hardship? She is limited to six weeks of benefit. We recognise that if she suddenly becomes sick and wants to claim more than six weeks' benefit there is a hard case. But what is the extent of the hardship? Presumably on marriage she is fit; it is extremely unlikely that she would marry if she was immediately going to claim sickness benefit. Presumably she is exceptionally sick. The average claim of women would be only one week's benefit, even at the present rate of benefit. Yet this new Clause provides for six weeks' benefit.
It would seem, therefore, that the six weeks will really cover practically all cases within the first six months after marriage. I do not see any prospect of real hardship to married women, therefore. If there is, what is the alternative? It is to leave the Bill as it is, and the figures clearly put before the House by those who have to carry out the Act—the figures are innumerable and can be seen in the Actuary's Report—clearly and definitely show that there is an increase in the married women's claims. I want to disabuse the House and the country of the idea that these are cases of malingering. That is a wrong view to take of them. The fact is that when people are hard up in any kind of way they will naturally take advantage of benefits provided by the State under law. There is no question of wishing to cheat about it. If it is clearly recognised that they are entitled under any law to a benefit, they will claim it. I maintain that that is not limited to married women in approved societies. It would be the same with nearly every Member of this House. Always when there is a benefit to be had from a club or society the ordinary claimant does not look to see whether there has been a proper interpretation of the original spirit of the rules and regulations of that club or society, but he asks whether according to the rules and regulations he is entitled to the benefit. So the married women naturally do the same thing. She says, "Here am I on marriage, as things are, going to fall out of benefit after so many weeks unemployment." Naturally enough she says, ''How can I keep in insurance?" She is advised that if in eight weeks she can take one half day's charing she will be all right, and she takes it. That is the position, and that is what we want to get at.
We are not attacking the morals of the people, but are recognising human nature. I maintain that no Amendment to the Bill other than a Clause like this will really meet the case. Are we going to have the pluck to do what is required? It is the case of a battle between the few hard cases and the large lacuna which exists, unless we put the system on a sound footing. I ask those who oppose the Amendment to recognise that whatever arrangement is come to there will always be hard cases. Do not let them think that because someone may be able
to get up and say that there may be a few married women who will be ill for more than six weeks in the first six months after marriage, and will not therefore get the full benefit, therefore we are going to have more hard cases than we would have had if this proposed new Clause had not been passed. I maintain that the Clause would not result in any more hard cases than we have at the moment. The House having at last made up its mind that it is going to make this Insurance Fund self-supporting is bound to take the view of the great mass of officials and societies who are in favour of this new Clause. If hon. Members run away from this proposal they run away from a test of the economy which they so strongly profess to support.

Miss HORSBRUGH: In rising to oppose the proposed new Clause, I wish to say at once how much I resent many of the statements made on the subject of women's employment by the Mover of the Motion. He pointed to the increase in the number of women who, he said, are pretending to work. I would like to take those words and translate them otherwise, and say that there is an increase of women trying to work. I do that because I am well aware that in many cases women are trying to continue employment and are going back into employment because of the difficulties they are up against just now while their husbands are unemployed. I know that I have neither the Parliamentary experience, not the experience of economics that is possessed by the Mover and Seconder of this new Clause, but I do think that I can speak, to some extent at any rate, for the married women workers of Great Britain. I represent a constituency which has the highest percentage in Scotland of women working in insured industries. Over 55 per cent. of the women of Dundee are working in insured industries. I know the difficulties of these women, and I ask the House to consider what would happen to them if the Clause were accepted.
We have been told by the Seconder of the Motion that we must not think of the few hard cases, that we must think of the broad principle. I ask the House to think of the broad principle. Is it right that a woman who has been in insurance, perhaps since the age of 16, in one of our mills, who has been forced week by week to contribute to the in-
surance fund, should automatically on marriage be deprived of the benefit for which she has paid? Is that a right principle? It is certainly a new principle that automatically on marriage, although a woman may have worked from the first day when she could work, she must be deprived of the benefit for which she has paid. I am told that after all she has been put into Class K, and that she can work her way up, that she can get employment and reinstate herself. But the broad principle seems to me to be this, why should she have to reinstate herself? Why should you take away her status simply because of marriage? For the moment I hon. dealing with the case of the woman who continues in employment on marriage. She is deprived of her status.
Then I am told that she can work her way back in 26 weeks. The Seconder of the Motion said that there will be few hard cases arising in the first 20 weeks. But a woman will only get the benefits of K class instead of what she is entitled to expect, merely because she is married. I wonder whether the cases would be so very few as have been suggested. Imagine a woman in full insurance being married and having it hanging over her head that if during the first 26 weeks of her marriage she gets ill she is to be deprived of the benefit for which she has paid and to which I think she has a right. We have been told that during the 26 weeks she can work her way back. I listened carefully to the speeches of the Mover and Seconder, and I have no doubt that they know all about the finances of approved societies, but while they have been examining the funds of approved societies has their vision been limited, have they any idea of what is going on in the distressed industrial areas?
A mill woman is married and is insured and is put into Class K. Are we sure that much as she wants to work she will get 26 weeks' work in the next year? Mills are closing down and many have closed down. The woman may have worked since she was a girl, and may be a skilled spinner or weaver. Can we be sure that after marriage she will be able to obtain the 26 weeks work in one insurance year? Suppose at the end of the first year she had 24 weeks' work. In some places she will do well if she gets that. Then comes the second year. Those women
cannot, in that year, get the whole 26 weeks' work and because of that, you turn out of insurance the woman who is insured and who is wanting work, and who, because the mill is shut down, does not get her work; you turn her out of insurance simply because you are told that there are people who are getting insurance benefit to-day to which they have no right. I think it is a disgrace to take away benefit from the genuine women workers simply because you are finding a deficit in a particular class of insured persons. Already we have cut down their benefit; already the married woman will suffer severely through this Bill.
The Minister, in bringing forward this Bill, asked us to support it because, in his opinion it is sufficient to make the scheme solvent, or at any rate he says he is willing to take the risk. I put it to the House that the solvency of the fund does not depend upon a few hard cases and that if, because of the solvency of the fund, we are supporting the Bill as it is, we are not, for the solvency of the fund, going to go further and turn out of insurance the women who have every right to benefit. It is said there are women who are pretending to work and who are getting insurance benefit when they are not working. That applies not merely to married women but to every class, to married and single men, and to married and single women. The difficulty is not to be decided by reference to the date of marriage, as it arises when there is part-time work. We are all aware that when there is part-time work, by a man or a woman, there is far less urge to get a job and stick to it than where the man or woman is supporting a household. I have been told that when discussing this it is no good putting forward the case that married women have to be the breadwinners of the family. I am told over and over again that married women are in a different class, because their money is not going to support a family as is the money of the man. I wish it were so, and I am certain that many of the married women wish it were so. We have to look at the facts in the case. In many industrial districts, as in those where the principal industry is the textile industry, the majority of the people in the mill are women, and not men. Unfortunately, it is very often
upon the woman that the whole burden of supporting the household falls.
I suggest to the Mover and Seconder of this Motion that the time is not ripe for the change. If, in our industrial areas we can get more men at work and if we can open new factories and mills where more men can get steady work and good wages, the time may come, and I for one will be very thankful to see it, when the women of this country will be able to go out of insurance when they marry, and will not have to keep on, not pretending to be at work, but struggling to get work as they have to do to-day. I hope the Clause will receive no support from the House.

Mrs. TATE: I also rise to oppose the Clause. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has told us that the Minister has said that although he will not accept the Clause, he is certain that it will conic up at some future time for the consideration of this House. I hope and believe that the House will never support a Clause drawn up on the totally unjust and very misleading lines upon which this Clause is drawn up. We know that the National Health Insurance Fund has been threatened with insolvency, and that because of that the Government have had to take action, and that, because the claims of the women were in excess of their contributions, the married women and, to a lesser extent unmarried women, have been singled out for reduction of benefit. The Government consider the reduction absolutely vital to the solvency of the fund. We have a right to believe that they have also considered the reductions adequate to the solvency of the fund.
I am against this Clause, because it introduces a new and extraordinary system of administration. The whole system of English law has been built up on the assumption that a person is innocent of any crime whatsoever until proved guilty; but if this Clause were ever to be accepted it means that in future all married women are to be considered malingerers and cheats until they have definitely proved that they are not. There is no reason why a genuinely employed married woman should be put into a position where she has to prove, herself neither a liar nor a cheat. The hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), in seconding this Motion,
said that there was no question of anyone being a malingerer, but that was not the case put forward by the hon. Member for South Croydon.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. I never made a reference to malingering. My argument referred only to whether people were in fact insured or not. The hon. Lady has no right, as she has done twice, to put into my mouth words which I have not used.

Mrs. TATE: I am sorry if the hon. Member for South Croydon feels so deeply at my having accused him of saying that women are malingerers. On 14th June when he first introduced this new Clause, he said:
I believe, as a result of the Act of 1928—of which I was one of the supporters—there have grown up certain abuses which I think it is right to correct. It is obviously wrong that people who are no longer in the field of employment should be treated as if they were in the field of employment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th June, 1932; col. 371, Vol. 267.]

Mr. WILLIAMS: There is nothing about malingering in that.

Mrs. TATE: You may call it abuse, or you may call it malingering. I am not quarrelling about words. Whether you call a married woman a malingerer or an abuser of the fund it will be very much the same thing to her. The hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) pointed out that in this Clause no account whatever is to be taken of the woman who, for the whole of her working life prior to marriage, has paid contributions into the fund. They are to be taken away from her as if they had never been paid. I call that highway robbery. This Clause is also extremely deceptive. You say, in effect, that a married woman is going to gain tremendously because, when she has qualified by 26 weeks' work, she will get out of Class K, but why, merely because she married should she ever be put into Class K?
At the present moment there are two classes of women who go into Class K. There is the married woman who, upon marriage, ears she no longer intends to work and who, therefore, in the course of time, goes naturally into Class K. It is of no advantage to her to be told that she can get out of Class K in 26 weeks, because she never intended to work, and therefore she never intends to try to get
out of Class K. There is another woman who tries to get work and to remain in insurance, but who has failed. Those women go to the Employment Exchange and register for work which is not forthcoming. They get their cards franked. If they refuse work which is offered them, after eight weeks they automatically go into Class K. Those are the people who abuse the fund, since they will not work when it is offered to them. Of what benefit is it to them to get back into Class K after 26 weeks' employment which they do not intend to get?
In the very lucid, kindly and sympathetic speech in which the Minister moved the Second Reading of this Bill, he said, first of all, that he must secure the solvency of the scheme. That was his main argument. Secondly, he said that he must maintain the other foundation stone of the scheme, which is that it is a contributory scheme based upon the principle that people get what they pay for. It was that contributory clement which we had to ensure was absolutely preserved in anything that we did. I respectfully submit that if this Clause were ever to be given consideration by this House, the contributory system which has to be "absolutely preserved" would be forever taken away.

Sir H. YOUNG: I believe that the House will consider that some statement ought to be made as to the reason why, as I have already stated to the House, I am not in a position to recommend the House to accept this proposed new Clause, after we have heard the very clear and able arguments which we have had, on the one side from my hon. Friends the Members for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), and on the other side from the hon. Members for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) and West Willesden (Mrs. Tate). I believe that a very useful purpose, indeed, has been served by raising this matter on the Floor of the House. The position dealt with by the hon. Member for South Croydon and the hon. Member for St. Albans is undoubtedly one that is not satisfactory. Attention has certainly been called to a matter which must give disquiet both to the approved societies and to those who are ultimately responsible for our National Health Insurance system.
4.30 p.m.
I am well aware of the very powerful support which there is for some such action as that which is recommended in this Clause. May I quote one little series of figures which will show the House the nature of the situation? Some 225,000 insured women marry in the course of the year, and, of those, 150,000 go genuinely and directly out of insurance because they do not intend to remain in the employment market, and some 50,000 women remain genuinely and directly in insurance because they are genuinely still remaining in the employment market. There is a balance, the exact size of which may be controversial, but which is round about 20,000 persons, about whom there is—how shall I put it?—a well-founded suspicion that they are not genuinely entering into the employment market; yet they are continuing to draw benefit and continue in insurance as if employed. It is that category, numbering about 20,000 persons, as to whom there is subject-matter for inquiry and consideration, as well as for disquiet by the approved societies and those responsible for the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon has pointed out that the test as to whether these persons, when unemployed, are actually available for employment or not, is a derisory test which does not amount to any real test at all. That is a very real situation, and it would be wrong on the part of any of us to blink its existence. Of course we know that humanly speaking the real gravity of the matter lies in the fact that the knowledge that there are such cases causes discontent among the genuine cases, and with that position one ought not to be permanently satisfied. Coming to the proposed new Clause and the remedy which it suggests, I have to say that some of the arguments which have been advanced by those who have spoken against the Clause are arguments which are entitled to prevail, and which should convince us that in this proposed new Clause we have not found the proper remedy for the admitted difficulties which I have described.
Perhaps I can best summarise the position in an old phrase. I think that in this Clause you are going too far—you are emptying the baby with the bath. In order to remedy the abuses to which
I have referred, you are undoubtedly subjecting to a certain disadvantage all women in insurance who marry, and that is not the hall-mark of the perfect remedy. The disadvantage, I agree, is a slight one, but, nevertheless the status in insurance of the woman who has married is doubtful, until she has completed 26 weeks employment and may give rise to some apprehension and uncertainty in her mind. I do not think that that can be justified by the mere fact of marriage, and the remedy, if a remedy is to be found, ought to be one which will not subject to any disadvantage married women as a whole. I do not think that their actual insurance rights would be really any worse under this Clause than without it, because I think they would be adequately protected during the intervening period by the Class K benefits. Nevertheless, there would be a period of uncertainty and doubt, and that, as I have said, is something that one cannot justify.
In the second place—and here I come to the more definite objection to the remedy suggested by the Clause, and the most positive difficulty that would stand in its way—the Clause would create a wholly new class of unemployed persons, who would be subjected to particular disadvantages in relation to insurance in comparison with other unemployed persons; and the only reason for their being subjected to that disadvantage in comparison with other unemployed persons would be their status as recently married women. I do not think that that can be justified. The disadvantage would be that the unemployed newly married women would have to fulfil a positive test as to employment before they obtained the benefits given to other unemployed persons. That is a sharp discrimination between them and other unemployed persons, and it cannot be justified. Another positive disadvantage attaching to the Clause is that it would not only subject this particular class of unemployed persons to a disadvantage to which other unemployed persons are not subjected but it would also subject them to a test which is actually a very severe one, and the severity of the test proposed is another matter which should be given consideration before the Clause is accepted.
Lastly, on the general aspect of the matter, it is true, as has been said by
the hon. Member for Dundee and by the hon. Member for West Willesden, that the Bill has been prepared carefully and anxiously in order to do the least which is necessary to serve the two fundamental purposes of protecting the future solvency of National Health Insurance and of re-establishing the contributory principle. The other provisions of the Bill, without the addition of this Clause, are undoubtedly adequate for that purpose, with the reservations which I have made in previous discussions on the subject. The financial aspect of the proposed new Clause is not by any means a considerable one, if we consider the working of the new provisions in regard to arrears. Whatever financial advantage would be gained from the Clause is not necessary for the special purposes of the Bill. Under these conditions it is not necessary, and since, for the other reasons to which I have referred, it does not, in my opinion, furnish an appropriate remedy for the undoubted difficulties at which it is directed, it ought not, in our opinion, to be incorporated in the Bill. I can summarise the matter by saying that it is really a Clause which deals with a matter which, although important, is not essentially relevant to the purposes of the Bill, and,, since the method by which it proposes to deal with that matter does not wholly commend itself, it would not be advisable that the House on this occasion should incorporate it in the Bill.

Mr. MELLER: The concluding words of the Minister were a little disappointing to me. He said that the proposed new Clause was not wholly relevant to the Bill. I should have thought that the views which have been expressed by those who have been working the National Health Insurance scheme for some years, and have put forward their proposals, not with any desire to benefit their particular organisations, but with a desire to benefit the scheme as a whole, would have been sufficient to impress my right hon. Friend with the view that at least this proposed new Clause was not irrelevant to the Bill itself. I think that, in the early days of the discussions on the Bill, the Minister himself had not made up his mind, but promised to give this matter very careful consideration. I am not suggesting for a moment that he has not given it careful consideration, but I do say that the opinion which he has ex-
pressed to-day, and the decision at which he has arrived, and which, of course, is final, will be very disappointing to workers in National Health Insurance.
Perhaps I might be allowed to say a word or two about the arguments which have been used against the proposed new Clause. I am bound to say that, if I had come freshly into the House, with no knowledge at all of Health Insurance or of the question of the married women coming within. Health Insurance, I should have been much impressed by the arguments which have been put forward by the two Lady Members who have spoken. They have touched upon that chord which, of course, impresses every man who has any feeling at all—that the married woman is going out to support the home owing to the unemployment of the breadwinner. But in this are we not getting away from the facts of the case and what the proposed new Clause is intended to do?
In the first place, Health Insurance postulates a contract of insurance, largely dependent upon employment of a normal and regular character. The people with whom we are endeavouring to deal under this Clause are people who are not in regular and normal employment, but people who come in quite haphazardly. The hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) shakes her head—[Interruption.] Perhaps I may be allowed to develop my argument. I am endeavouring to point out that the argument has been that these women were keeping their homes together. Let it be remembered, however, that the women whom we are considering have just thought it wise to enter into marriage, and that they have not been employed in keeping husbands for some time prior to the present; they have been employed as ordinary single women. They have taken up marriage as their new occupation, and then the question has arisen whether or not they should go back to the old order of things, perhaps owing to their being compelled by circumstances to take up work again as part and parcel of their ordinary life—

Miss HORSBRUGH: The mill workers to whom I was referring are people who never cease work when they marry. Unfortunately, in the mill industry, for 50 or 60 years past the women have worked both before and after marriage, and they get no further benefit as married women
which they did not get when they were single. I agree that they have taken on the responsibility of a husband, but they do not get any extra benefit.

Mr. MELLER: I think I know something about mill life, both in Scotland and in Lancashire, to which reference has been made. I have endeavoured to point out that the hardship, if it be a hardship, upon these women who are continuing their work is not a new one in Health Insurance. These people who have taken on marriage as a new occupation, and have left off work for a period of eight weeks, had to go into Class K under the old order. We say that there are so many women now taking on marriage, not as their ordinary occupation in life, but as a side-line—[Interruption.]—I could give many instances where it is nothing more or less than a side-line—[Interruption.] I only want to say that I am disappointed that the Minister has not thought fit to accept the Clause, even with some amendment. If he could have suggested some way in which it might have been amended, I think it would have been very helpful to the Bill. The position of married women with regard to insurance is a serious one. I do not believe that the new Bill is going to meet the difficulties which the Actuary has placed before us, and, if the House accepts the Minister's suggestion and rejects this Clause, it will, before very long, have to consider this question and to accept either the proposal which is put before it to-day or something very similar, in order that the Health Insurance of women may be placed upon a proper basis.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 90 of principal Act.)

In Section ninety of the principal Act (which relates to decision of disputes) to Subsection (3) there shall be added the following words:
And benefit shall be paid up to the date that the decision of such referee is intimated to the person concerned, where such decision is adverse to his or her claim."—[Mr. Buchanan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The point with which this Clause deals is a minor one. We fought the Minister rather closely in Committee, and it is now our intention only to raise one or two minor matters in regard to which we think the Bill could be improved. Our main reason for putting down this Clause is that recently a new set of circumstances has arisen affecting the number of persons coming under health insurance. Recently, as everyone is aware, the administration of health insurance has been tightened up. I am not going to discuss the reasons for that, but I know that a Circular was issued in 1930 which considerably tightened up the administration, and that has been followed, according to the statement of the Minister, by a further tightening of administration. A number of sick persons, or persons who have been certified as being sick, appear before a medical board and are examined. Two or three days subsequently they receive a notice to the effect that they are now fit for work and their sickness benefit must stop. They have no work to which to go, so they proceed to the Employment Exchange to sign on on the day that they receive the notice. They only receive sickness benefit from the day on which they are examined and they cannot go to the Employment Exchange because, if their sickness continue, and they signed on for the intervening days, it would be a complete negation of what they were claiming, and it would come very near to fraud.
They receive a notice three days afterwards and then they sign on at the Employment Exchange and they find that they are not entitled to sickness benefit, which stopped on the day the medical board examined them. Then they find that the Employment Exchange denies them benefit because they have not signed on the day previous to their sickness. In one or two cases it has deprived them not only of a day or two of benefit but of the week's waiting period, to which the sickness benefit automatically disentitles them. We are simply asking that the day on which the person receives the notice should be the day on which sickness benefit should stop. In another section of the 1924 Act the sickness can only count on the date when the notice is posted. That ought to operate the other way as well. It is not unfair to say that sickness benefit should continue until the actual sickness notice is
received. I do not think anyone can defend the principle of a person being disqualified for sickness benefit and at the same time being disqualified for unemployment benefit. We were able on the Unemployment Insurance Act, with the help of the present Under-Secretary, to get this principle accepted, that courts of referees should give a decision there and then if possible and, if not, the benefit should be continued until a decision was given. If the Minister cannot accept the Clause, can he not give us a definite guarantee that the decision of the board will be promulgated on the same day, while the applicant is there? I do not see any difficulty in that being done. They examine the person there and then and know whether he is fit or not, and the decision ought to be given at once. The delay of two or three days handicaps the applicant both for sickness and unemployment benefit.

Mr. MAXTON: I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. TINKER: I should like to support the Clause, because it touches on matters that I myself have noticed. Sometimes a decision is challenged and the regional doctor has to decide between the applicant and the medical man who certifies that he has recovered. The man is in doubt whether to sign on at the Employment Exchange or not, but the Employment Exchange will not receive his signature until he is definitely pronounced fit for work. The man is then in a difficulty. He cannot claim unemployment benefit, because he is claiming that he has not recovered. On the other hand, the insurance people say he has recovered and, therefore, he will be subjected to some examination. He has to lose the few intervening days at present. By not being able to sign on, he cannot claim there. If he has recovered, those days are missing. The same thing applies when a man is recovering under workmen's compensation. I am not sure whether the Minister will be able to deal with this matter to-day or not, but it certainly wants ventilating on the Floor of the House. Payment should be made either from the Unemployment Fund or from National Health Insurance. If the Minister can accept the Clause, it will go a long way to remove one of the greatest difficulties to which the men are subject.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) put his case persuasively, as he always does, but I am sorry to say that the point he raises has nothing to do with the Clause he has drafted. They touch entirely different points. Section 90 applies only to the final appeal to the Minister. There is no question whatever that, if the Act were amended in the way the hon. Member wants, there would probably be some thousands of appeals annually, and they are not inexpensive. Every refusal of benefit, however justifiable, might well be made the subject of appeal. The House will be interested in the point and we shall make a note of it, but I think the hon. Member will see that his drafting does not meet the point that he wishes to meet, but raises an issue of very great gravity from the point of view of administration, and might have very expensive results. In those circumstances, I am sorry that the Government cannot see its way to accept the Clause.

Mr. BUCHANAN: If the hon. Gentleman cannot accept the Clause in this form, could he not see, by regulation or instruction, that payment is made until the date of notification or that the person shall be notified on the day that he appears before the board?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member will not expect an answer now. We will take note of what he says. What he intends to do is an entirely different thing from what he proposes in this Clause. I cannot go any further to-day.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he views this point with favour? If he does, could he not provide for meeting it in another place? It is a point of some substance to a large number of people. It would not cost a very great amount as far as the scheme is concerned, and it means much to those who suffer.

Mr. PRICE: I believe it is a fact that, where a case is ultimately referred to the Minister, many months pass before a decision is given. I think the acceptance of a Clause like this would make the Minister feel that a decision ought to be given more speedily. In some cases where the decision has been in favour of the applicant, he has had to wait six
months and has received no benefit. The idea of the Clause, as I take it, is that a more speedy decision should be given and that, pending the decision, the man or woman should not suffer but should receive benefit.

Sir H. YOUNG: I rise lest hon. Members should think I am showing any discourtesy to their request. I rise for the sole purpose of reinforcing what has been

said by the Parliamentary Secretary. The point that is being put is wholly different from that advanced in the Clause. I do not think it is a wise thing to give an undertaking on a point which is not specifically raised by the Clause. I can only confirm what my hon. Friend has said, that the considerations that have been advanced will receive attention.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 48; Noes, 299.

Division No. 249.]
AYES.
[4.58 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Price, Gabriel


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Briant, Frank
Hicks, Ernest George
Thorne, William James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hirst, George Henry
Tinker, John Joseph


Buchanan, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Cove, William G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Daggar, George
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Lunn, William
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Edwards, Charles
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Chotzner, Alfred James
Elliston, Captain George Sampson


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Christie, James Archibald
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Albery, Irving James
Clarke, Frank
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.)
Clarry, Reginald George
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Clayton, Dr. George C.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Fermoy, Lord


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Colville, John
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst


Apsley, Lord
Conant, R. J. E.
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)


Atholl, Duchess of
Cook, Thomas A.
Fox, Sir Gifford


Atkinson, Cyril
Cooke, Douglas
Fraser, Captain Ian


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cooper, A. Duff
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Balniel, Lord
Copeland, Ida
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Cowan, D. M.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Cranborne, Viscount.
Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Craven-Ellis, William
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Goff, Sir Park


Borodale, Viscount
Crooke, J. Smedley
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Bossom, A. C.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Boulton, W. W.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Graves, Marjorie


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grimston, R. V.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Davison, Sir William Henry
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Broadbent, Colonel John
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Denville, Alfred
Hales, Harold K.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Dickie, John P.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hammersley, Samuel S.


Burghley, Lord
Donner, P. W.
Hanley, Dennis A.


Burnett, John George
Doran, Edward
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Harris, Sir Percy


Carver, Major William H.
Drewe, Cedric
Hartington, Marquess of


Castlereagh, Viscount
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Hartland, George A.


Castle Stewart, Earl
Duggan, Hubert John
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Dunglass, Lord
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Eady, George H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Eden, Robert Anthony
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Milne, Charles
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Hornby, Frank
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Scone, Lord


Horobin, Ian M.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Selley, Harry R.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Mitcheson, G. G.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Munro, Patrick
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Hurd, Sir Percy
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'id)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Smithers, Waldron


Jamieson, Douglas
North, Captain Edward T.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ormiston, Thomas
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Pearson, William G.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Peat, Charles U.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Penny, Sir George
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Ker, J. Campbell
Percy, Lord Eustace
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Kimball, Lawrence
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Stevenson, James


Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Petherick, M.
Stones, James


Knight Holford
Peto, Sir Basll E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Strauss, Edward A.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Pickering, Ernest H.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Law, Sir Alfred
Potter, John
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Leckie, J. A.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Summersby, Charles H.


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Tate, Mavis Constance


Lees-Jones, John
Pybus, Percy John
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Leigh, Sir John
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Levy, Thomas
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Lewis, Oswald
Ramsden, E.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Liddall, Walter S.
Rankin, Robert
Train, John


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Rathbone, Eleanor
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd, G'n)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Turton, Robert Hugh


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Rea, Walter Russell
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Mabane, William
Rentoul Sir Gervals S.
Ward, Lt.-Col, Sir A. L. (Hull)


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


McKie, John Hamilton
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Roberts, Aied (Wrexham)
Weymouth, Viscount


McLean, Major Alan
Rosbotham, S. T.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Ross. Ronald D.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Magnay, Thomas
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Maitland, Adam
Rothschild, James A. de
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Womersley, Walter James


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wragg, Herbert


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Martin, Thomas B.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo



Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Salmon, Major Isidore
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Meller, Richard James
Salt, Edward W.
Lord Erskine and Mr. Harcourt




Johnstone.

CLAUSE 1.—(Amendments of s. 3 of principal Act, 14 and 15 Geo. 5, c. 38.)

Mr. LOGAN: I beg to move,, in page 3, line 15, to leave out from the word "thirty-five," to the end of line 21.
Perhaps it would be better for the purpose of moving this deletion, if I were to read out the original paragraph (a):
No person shall by virtue of this subsection be treated as insured after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-five.
Paragraph (b) is the most important part, which, to my mind, imposes a penalty on the insured person, which penalty, if the deletion which I am moving takes effect, will be removed, and it
will then fall into consonance with paragraph (a), without paragraph (b) coming into operation. That means that by the deletion of paragraph (b) the penalty which is sought to be imposed on the insured person will not be imposed, and therefore the various benefits, with which I shall deal later, will be carried right through to the year 1935. Paragraph (b), the deletion of which I am moving, reads:
A person whilst so treated as insured"—
and bear in mind that by paragraph (a) it is provided that a person shall be considered to be insured up to the end of the year 1935, but this paragraph (b) penalises the insured person, and deals with a different year.
A person whilst so treated as insured shall not be entitled to maternity benefit, and shall not after tine thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-three"—
in contradistinction to the year 1935, which is dealt with in paragraph (a)—
be entitled to medical benefit or any additional benefits.
Now those benefits of which the insured person will be deprived consist of everything which is beneficial in the National Health Insurance Act. "Medical benefit" is mentioned, but I think it would be far better if hon. Members of this House would understand that medical benefit comprises two parts, sickness benefit and disablement benefit, both of them conjointly coming into the category of medical benefit, and those insured in societies who are able to get additional benefits can also get additional benefits if they, being considered insured members, are entitled to those benefits. But the anomaly of this particular paragraph is that while under paragraph (a) a person can be entitled, or should be entitled because he is considered to be insured up to the year 1935, under paragraph (b) he is to be considered to be insured only up to 1933 from the point of view of getting benefit. It may be stated that as far as this particular extension is concerned, the financial extremity in which the National Government find themselves makes it absolutely necessary that there should be a curtailment in respect of this further extension, but I do with all due respect say that from the point of view of the insured person, the insured person should terminate the insurance at a period when he is entitled to all the benefits, and if the period be 1935 as is stated in paragraph (a), then my contention on paragraph (b) is that 1935 is the period with which we ought to deal. If the Minister will accept this, it is quite possible that the extension of these benefits will be of very great concern to insured people.
I do not wish to go into long statements in regard to the disabilities which the insured person is likely to suffer, even though unemployed and not being entitled to get those benefits, but I should like to remind the House that when the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) on 13th June last dealt with these important matters in a speech which fills about five columns of the
OFFICIAL REPORT, evidence was adduced pointing out to hon. Members the absolute necessity of such an Amendment as this which I am moving to-day. With all due respect, I wish to point out that the unemployed are being denied two benefits, first, in the category of unemployment, being unemployed they are being deprived of those benefits, and now when we come to deal with that essential service of public health, we find that they are also being denied that. I submit to this House that the only alternative is that the unemployed, and others who are in the National Health Insurance, and who have ceased employment and are going to lose the benefit under this Act, will, willy-nilly and whether the National Government like it or not, be put into the category of those who have got to receive Poor Law relief.
I do not think that this is a fair and just proposition, and although financial stringency may make it impossible for the Minister to give any improvement in many matters, I am fully convinced that the Minister is not going to be prepared to do an injustice, even at this late hour of the day, to those who are unemployed. If he can possibly see his way to let this Amendment go through, the question of redress can, I think, be brought up later, when we find an improvement in trade, as I am optimist enough to believe that we will, and there are many people in the country who will be very thankful that the voice of the Opposition was able to obtain some redress of what would be a great calamity to the unemployed. Of all the social services of which I know, I know of none that has given better advantages to our people, and when I come to think that a denial of maternity benefit is about to take place, and that those entitled to sickness benefits are going to be penalised because, so we are told, we are not able to meet the cost of these benefits, it appears to me that that is a thing which ought to be avoided.
We are told that societies can no longer be carried on and that societies are not able to meet their liabilities, and actuarial figures are brought forward to prove that on the next valuation there are likely to be readjustments unless a benefit is given to the societies. Even though maternity, sickness and disablement benefit are to go because people are, unfortunately, unemployed in these days of depression, I am sufficiently optimistic to believe that
there is going be a great return to prosperity in the future. Hon. Members on the benches opposite seem to be bubbling over with a great desire to bring prosperity to the nation. I am fully convinced that if the Government have hope and courage in regard to what they propound in this House, good times are coming, and that they could accept the Amendment, which would bring hope and consolation to the people of this nation. The funds of approved societies would be improved by a greater number of people returning to work again. It is in the national interest to give maternity, sickness and disablement benefits to the class who require them more than anyone else in the community.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to second the Amendment.
Earlier in the day, the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said that we were not contesting the principle of the Bill to-day because we did that on the Committee stage, and that we should try to get some concessions if possible. If we could prevail upon the Minister to give way upon some points it would be of material benefit to many of our people. Under the provisions of the earlier part of the Clause, benefits are given up to December, 1935, and we are trying to eliminate the provision which brings down certain other benefits to December, 1933. This would be a small concession and would not cut across the principles of the Bill. The provisions of the Bill will bear hardly upon the unemployed people. When a question was put to the Parliamentary Secretary he said that it would not hit more than 80,000 people, and the Minister supplemented that information by saying that probably the number would increase by 10,000 a year, but not more.
Since that Debate took place I have been looking up the figures. My memory takes mo back to the Debate on the Vote for the Labour Ministry when the Parliamentary Secretary stated that there were 600,000 unemployed people on the registers at the Employment Exchanges who were what may be called industrial cripples. Until trade revived enormously these people could not get back into employment. One can visualise under our present system that industrial cripples will not get an opportunity to work as long as there are other people available. A large proportion of those 600,000 people
will have no hope of getting employment again. Piecing these things together, I think that the 80,000 will grow enormously when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. In addition to the 80,000 increasing by 10,000 a year, I should like to know what will eventually become of the other 400,000 or 500,000. I may be wrong in my calculation, but I feel satisfied that these people will be struck off altogether from National Health Insurance benefit. If we cannot get them into the scheme altogether, we ask that at least the Minister should take them on until 1935. Why he should strike them off at 1933 is beyond my comprehension. I am very sorry that the Bill has not been made plainer to the House of Commons. It is very difficult to piece the various Clauses together in order to get something tangible on which to argue. When the Bill passes into law, I hope that the position will be made plain, so that we may understand what is actually meant. The Amendment is not one which it is unreasonable to expect the Minister to accept.

Mr. PRICE: I support the Amendment. I believe that if the Bill is passed in its present form it will be the most diabolical piece of legislation hanging over the heads of a large number of unemployed who are the victims of circumstances, and who will have no hope at all. Unless the Minister accepts the Amendment, miners or any other workers who to-day may be unemployed and fail to get reinstated before 1933, although they may have been paying into an approved society for 20 years and may have drawn no benefits whatever, will be thrown completely out of insurance benefit—financial, maternity, sickness and medical. It will affect their old age pension too and orphans who may be left will be robbed of their pensions. It is a very serious position. The Government are refusing to allow organisations which have balances to their credit to continue to pay those benefits. In the state of industry to-day, is it fair and just to reorganise National Health Insurance which carries with it old age pensions at 65, pensions for orphans, and widows' pensions? Is it just at a time like this to reorganise the scheme and compel all approved societies to operate it regardless of their financial position and thereby affect the position of men who may have
contributed to approved societies for 20 years and not drawn a copper coin out of the funds? The Amendment suggests that benefits should follow insurance membership until 1935. Is this the time, when the Government should have same idea of the success which they are likely to meet with at Ottawa and at Lausanne, to take a step which will inflict tremendous hardships upon thousands of men, women and orphans?
It was stated during the Second Reading of the Bill that on actuarial grounds, and owing to the fact that this is a contributory scheme, some reorganisation ought to be carried out, but I suggest that this could be done without affecting the unemployed in this way. The Treasury benefited when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) robbed the National Health Insurance Fund of millions of pounds in 1921. Why should the contributors to the fund have to suffer now that there is a deficit? Let the Treasury pay back the money to the approved societies from whom it was taken so that benefits can be continued. I look upon this as a serious matter. I left the colliery to come into this House as a result of the last election. I had contributed to National Health Insurance, and I do so at the moment as a voluntary contributor. There are thousands of miners in my district, as there are up and down the country, who like myself have contributed to National Health Insurance for 20 years. They are now unemployed and the victims of circumstances. Many of them have become unemployed since the National Government took office. What hope do the Government hold out to those men? There has been no industrial improvement since the Government took office, and the Government now turn round to those men and say, "The only hope we can give you is until 1933. Unless you have got back into an insurable industry you will lose all benefits under the National Health Insurance Act."
I think that some better way could have been found to put the Insurance Fund upon a sound basis than to penalise men who are least able to bear the burden. Many courses could have been taken instead of inflicting an injustice upon unemployed men, who, in thousands of cases, have become unemployed since
the National Government took office. Is this the only thing we can expect from a National Government who came in with trumpets blowing, and suggesting that they were going to put the world right in 24 hours? They have been in office all these months, and the only thing we can expect is to see widows and orphans robbed of their pensions. The sooner the Government get out of it the better. I suggest that even at this late hour the Minister ought to reconsider the position, which seriously affects thousands of men and women in the country, and see if there is not a better way of putting the finances of the fund on a sound basis without taking advantage of these innocent victims. Therefore, I have pleasure in supporting the Amendment, and I hope the Minister will accept it.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: I am sure the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary cannot be elated about the paucity of the attendance on the Government Benches just now. We are discussing what is recognised in the country as a first-class Measure, and one could almost count on both hands the number of the supporters that the National Government have in the House at the present time. That is regrettable. I do not hold the Minister of Health or the Parliamentary Secretary responsible. They have been in the House throughout the Debate on the Second Reading, on the Committee stage and now the Report stage, but it is a serious reflection upon the supporters of the National Government when we find so few of them in attendance while we are discussing a first-class Measure.
I spoke last week on an Amendment to increase 35 to 40. To-day we are trying to extend the length of time by deleting the Clause that would grant the benefit up to 1935. We were unable last week to make an impression upon the Minister and I presume that we shall be unable to do so to-day. I am entitled to place before the House not my own view on the matter, but the considered judgment of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. Perhaps I shall be pardoned if I read the memorandum that I have received from them appertaining to it. It is pertinent, in that it deals with the Clause which we are endeavouring to delete. The Minister will appreciate
that the memorandum has been drafted by those who represent a large number of miners who are employed, apart from the unemployed who are not actually contributors to the fund owing to their unemployment. There is a lengthy reference dealing with prolongation, which I do not propose to read because it would not be technically in order. The memorandum says:
Under the Prolongation Regulations members of Approved Societies who have been in insurance for 208 weeks and have paid 160 contributions, when they become employed are retained in insurance, with full benefits, for two years, and for a further period of one year at half the usual rate of benefits. All members so unemployed secure those benefits by the production of health insurance cards franked by the Labour Exchange, or of other evidence to prove that they are capable of but unable to obtain work. Under the proposed amended Bill it is provided that this arrangement shall terminate in December, 1932, and, except where the new conditions imposed have been satisfied, unemployed members will after that date lose their entitlement to sickness and maternity benefits. For the year 1933 they will receive medical benefits only, which will afterwards be discontinued. In addition they will, for the period to December 1935, be treated as continuing in insurance for the purpose of retaining their title to pensions, and in the case of the death of a member within a period of 12 months thereafter pension will be payable to the widow and orphans.
The Memorandum then proceeds to give certain examples.
These provisions have been secured for him without his having to pay any contributions, but only upon production of evidence that he has been genuinely unemployed.
He might have been paying to the fund for 15 or 20 years and if he became unemployed, as is indicated in the Memorandum, his card was automatically stamped at the Employment Exchange and ho was entitled to all the benefits that came under the National Health Insurance scheme. From now on one knows that he cannot obtain any of the benefits referred to in the Clause that we are endeavouring to amend, unless he works either for a period of eight weeks or obtains eight stamps, which may be one stamp per week for eight weeks. If I read the Clause correctly, no person will be entitled to any benefit of any kind whatsoever beyond the year 1935 unless he has worked 26 weeks in the meantime. I should like the Minister when he replies to make that point clear. That is my interpretation of the Clause.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present—

Mr. WILLIAMS: Should I be in order in asking those hon. Members who have just come in, to remain in the House? The Whips are to be congratulated on gutting a few additional Members. The point I was putting to the Minister was the interpretation that I put upon the Clause and that is, that no person will be entitled to benefit of any kind if he has not worked 26 weeks before the end of 1935. If my interpretation is correct, I should like the House to visualise what is happening at the present time. Is there any hope for the miners of this country, for whom I am speaking, who are now unemployed, and other miners who are being rendered unemployed in ever-increasing numbers, to obtain six months employment prior to 1935? I have to assume that the Government agree that there is no such hope. They have no faith in their fiscal policy. If they had any faith in their fiscal policy they would not so alter the period as to make it incumbent upon a. person to have eight weeks work in the preceding 12 months before he is recognised for benefit. They would continue the present arrangement. They would agree that at the Employment Exchange, if the person making application was normally engaged in insurable employment, his card would be franked as hitherto, but because they have no faith in their fiscal policy and they do not believe that it is possible for persons to obtain employment, they are endeavouring to stretch the period of employment, and an enormous number of people will be affected.
It is computed that 80,000 persons, men and women, will be affected by the Bill. It is further computed, according to the Minister's statement last week, that that number will increase at the rate of 10,000 a year. I wish I could believe that that really was the figure. I am inclined to believe that the number will be increased substantially more than that. This morning in the provincial newspaper for Wales I find that the largest colliery that I have had under my purview for the last 12 years or so is likely to close. From yesterday's Press I find that three or four of the largest collieries in South Wales, employing 3,500 persons, have tendered notices to their workpeople.
We find that each week in South Wales unemployment in the absolute sense is increasing, as well as intermittent employment. Since January, taking the official figures of the mining industry alone, unemployment has increased by 63,000. We must wait till next week for the latest returns. It is computed, and I think it may be accepted from the evidence that we are able to see with our own eyes each week-end when we return to our constituencies, that that number must have substantially increased during the intervening period. What hope is there for those persons ever to receive free benefit if they must obtain six months normal employment in an insurable occupation? All that we have laid before us in this House is the need for making the scheme actuarially sound. I suggest to hon. Members opposite that they do not apply that kind of philosophy to other things. They do not apply it to the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. The same principle that they desire to apply in the realm of Health Insurance, this enormous piece of social service, they do not seek to apply to the Defence Forces and other matters that are considered of national importance.
I submit that the National Health Insurance scheme is, of all matters, a question of paramount importance to the people of this country. There is nothing of so great value to the people. If one has to argue it purely on the financial ground, has the Minister computed what this will mean to the local authorities? Sitting by my side is the hon. Member for Neath (Sir William Jenkins). He is the chairman of a large number of our standing committees in Glamorganshire. Glamorganshire is really on the verge of ruin. Below the Gangway a few moments ago there sat the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Wallhead). Merthyr Tydvil is faced with bankruptcy. It is actually appealing to the Glamorgan County Council to be absorbed, because public assistance there is making it impossible for it to live as a borough. Glamorganshire, I agree, may be an extreme case, but in Monmouthshire the expenditure is greater than the total rate revenue. These two counties are entirely dependent on coal mining, and, although they may be extreme cases, they are typical of all areas where mining, steel, shipbuilding and such-like staple indus-
tries are the dominant industries of the area. Yet this Bill is designed to relieve the Exchequer of a certain liability and throw it upon these local authorities. You are driving the depressed areas into still deeper depths of depression, and greatly adding to the ever increasing weight of misery falling on the shoulders of the poor. Over 50 per cent, of the small businesses in my own constituency are actually closed. It is quite impossible for them to carry on, and practically every person who will be thrown off benefit will fall upon public assistance and add to the ever increasing liability which is falling on the shoulders of local authorities.
Surely it is time that this House called a halt and endeavoured to realise what is happening in these areas. In the 10 or twelve mining valleys of South Wales not more than 50 per cent, of the men are engaged, and there is no hope of those who are unemployed obtaining 26 weeks work prior to 1935. I have been personally responsible in a certain capacity for the affairs of thousands of men, and there are at least 3,000 to 4,000 men who come under my purview who have been idle since 1926, and 1,500 to 2,003 who have been idle since 1921. Yet it is assumed that it is possible for these men to get 26 weeks work prior to 1935, and if they do not all their benefits will be discontinued, including pensions if they are under 56 years of age. It is really one of the most serious situations with which this House has been confronted, and hon. Members will pardon me stressing the urgency of this problem. If it was a question of putting the fund upon an actuarial basis the Government could bring in scores of thousands of persona who are now outside. They could bring in the railway men and Members of this House, those between 14 and 16 years of age, members of the Civil Service, and teachers, who are outside the scheme entirely.
The Government leave outside the scheme those persons who have security of tenure, who have regular employment, and bring within it those who are likely to be the first hit when depression comes along. It is a scheme which is inevitably actuarially unsound. Within the next 12 months the Minister will be obliged to come to this House again. It will be impossible, with the depression increasing at such a rapid rate, to carry on the
scheme on an actuarial basis, that is if you leave the scheme to those persons who are normally subscribing to it and do not bring within its purview persons with a salary of less than £400 a year. If you did this you would be able to increase the revenue without unduly increasing the expenditure, because the persons who are now left outside are those who have some security of employment.
If the Minister really wants to make the scheme actuarially sound he should endeavour to increase the revenue by tapping industries and avocations which would bring in people who would be able to subscribe regularly, and who would not drain the fund to anything like the same amount. I hope the Minister will reflect upon the matter again. We believe that it is possible to get a scheme which is actuarially sound and at the same time save one of the finest monuments of Great Britain—namely, its care for the health of its people and the medical assistance and treatment which is now being meted out to the poor of the land. Hon. Members opposite are wealthy enough to engage their own medical practitioner. I can speak from a recent experience; I know what it means to be laid up. Let hon. Members appreciate what it means to the poor to be sick and unable to call upon a doctor when they are ill. They cannot afford to do so. But these are the people whom we want to see restored to industry as soon as possible. These are the people who, it is contemplated, may be employed through the schemes of the Government, yet they are gradually fading away through sickness and unemployment and are becoming so badly impaired in health that if employment becomes available they will not be fit to undertake the task. For these reasons I trust the Minister will reflect again and accept the Amendment.

Sir H. YOUNG: I must remind hon. Members that the Third Reading Debate will take place later in the day. At the present moment what I have to deal with is the Amendment that has been moved, that is, to leave out from 1935 to the end of line 21. The effect of that would be to prolong medical benefits and maternity benefits and additional benefits up to the end of the year 1935. The arguments which have been addressed to the House by hon. Members have no relation to the
Amendment. They have been addressed to the indefinite extension of benefits without any regulation of time at all. One very grave misapprehension prevails in the minds of hon. Members opposite. They have argued their case as if the pensions benefits would end at the end of the year 1933. That is not the case. Under the Bill pensions are continued until the end of the year 1935. Hon. Members have said that the Bill is difficult to comprehend. I agree; but there is a White Paper which is not difficult of comprehension.

Mr. MAXTON: It is not too easy.

Sir H. YOUNG: It is not beyond the intelligence of the average Member of Parliament, and hon. Members below the Gangway understand it very well, as I have had means of ascertaining. By this time we might have expected that hon. Members, before attacking the Bill in such an indiscriminate fashion, would have acquainted themselves with the elements of its provisions. I cannot deal with the arguments that have been advanced, because they have been devoted to an attack on the bases of a solvent contributory insurance scheme. I stated at the outset of our Debates that the policy of the Bill was based on two assumptions—namely, that a National Health Insurance scheme must be solvent in itself, and that it must be supported as a contributory scheme. Those are matters which are, no doubt, suitable for debate on Second and Third Reading, but I do not think any useful purpose is served by discussing them on every Amendment. It is quite clear from the speeches of hon. Members that they are prepared to abandon the solvency of the scheme and the contributory nature of the scheme, and to throw the whole burden on the Exchequer. The Government are not prepared to do that, and for the reason that, if you seek to maintain benefits such as those which are given in National Health Insurance or in National Unemployment Insurance without those checks which are natural to an insurance scheme on a contributory principle, there is only one possible end to such a scheme, and that is to throw such an intolerable burden on to national resources that not only would there be a reduction of benefits such as are unfortunately envisaged in the Bill, but that
the whole scheme would fall in ruins and there would be no benefits at all.
6.0 p.m.
Such measures as we are taking now are for the protection of the contributors to the scheme, and in order to ensure that the benefits shall be provided for them. Some play was made by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) with the words "penalties" and "a denial of right." I must repeat, in order to prevent these mischievous misrepresentations getting abroad in the country, what I said upon a previous occasion, that the Bill denies no man any right. The hard truth with which we have to start is this: As regards those with whom we are dealing, namely, those in prolongation, in the average case, by the time the benefits secured to them by this Bill expire, they will have enjoyed in the form of benefits more than they have paid in contributions. There is no sacrifice of benefits there. Now as to the allegation of penalties. It is a complete misrepresentation to say that this Bill imposes penalties upon anybody. On the contrary, the attitude from which we approach the unemployed and their insurance in this Bill, is the attitude of protecting those rights to the limit of what is possible, consistent with the two basic principles to which I have referred, namely, the solvency of the scheme and the maintenance of the contributory principle. So far from inflicting penalties upon any man or woman the Bill confers new rights, and for the benefit of hon. Members who may not have been present when I said it during the Committee stage I repeat, in connection with this Amendment, what the Bill secures by way of new rights to the insured unemployed.
Unless such measures as we propose are taken, at the end of this year or at the cessation of prolongation, some 80,000 unemployed will go completely out of insurance. That is the situation which we have to save, and we save the situation by conferring the following extensions: First, there is an additional year of medical benefit for 1933. After the expiration of that year there are two further additional years of pension rights for 1934 and 1935. All these are new extensions and new concessions to the unemployed insured. Hon. Members tried to produce the impression that after 1935
there was no further benefit for these persons. They failed to remind the House that, up to the introduction of this Bill, every person over 60, even though unemployed, was continued in insurance, until the critical age of 65, and maintained his insurance lights; and they have failed to remind the House that the Bill extends that privilege.
Some play has been made with the fact that if one goes out of insurance 26 contributions are necessary in order to get back into insurance. This is a suppression of essential facts which almost amounts to a suggestion of that which is unveracious. The fact is that until this Bill was introduced, in order to get back into pensions insurance it was necessary to find 104 contributions. This Bill makes the very important further concession that, for the recovery of pension rights, instead of 104 contributions being necessary, we have made a very large reduction and not more than 26 contributions are now required. All this does not under-estimate the painfulness of the position that, owing to the facts set out in the Actuary's Report, we have to come to the House with a Bill which, though not in these Clauses, undoubtedly contains restrictions in other Clauses. It is the painful consequence of painful national circumstances in which many legitimate and high hopes have had to be postponed. Let us also recognise that while we feel the difficulties of the position, no worse service can be performed to those whose interests we desire to protect, than to misrepresent the situation, and it is a misrepresentation of the situation to refer to every restriction in the Bill and to pass over without a word the very large concessions which are made in the Bill.

Mr. LOGAN: There has been no misrepresentation as regards this Section.

Sir H. YOUNG: I do not charge any Member of this House with any deliberate misrepresentation. I only say that the point of view which I have indicated is one which, if taken sufficiently firmly, is apt to produce an effect which is misrepresentative on the minds of the uninstructed. Then it is said that we have made no allowance for better times. Why not, it is asked, put things off in the hope that something will turn up? We have had enough of putting
things off in the hope that something will turn up. What is the National Government here for? Not to put things off any longer in the hope that something will turn up, but to grapple courageously with our difficulties, and show the country the right way of dealing with those difficulties on the spot. I have said before, and I say again, that there is no task more characteristic of and more pertinent to a Government, born under the conditions under which this Government was born, than to ask the country to support it in the duty, at once painful and obvious, of reinforcing the finances of the National Health Insurance scheme and preventing it from falling down that slope which has landed us into such difficulties and confusion in connection with Unemployment Insurance.
Another consideration has been present to the minds of the Government in making their plans for this Bill. Hon. Members ask, why put it off until 1935? There are two reasons. The first is that every financial asset of which I could properly avail myself for the purpose of extension, will not enable me to put it off any longer at the present time. In the second place, I have gone to 1935 deliberately, because, under present conditions, it has seemed legitimate and prudent to give a breathing space for the country to recover, and not to take inevitable steps in the way of exclusion from insurance rights until it is absolutely certain that there is no other course open. We can keep these insurance rights going for as long as is consistent with solvency, and, since we can do so, we ought to do so, because we hope and believe that in doing so we give the unemployed insured an opportunity of maintaining their insurance by the best of all possible means, that is by the recovery of their rights through re-entry into employment with the return of better times.
Finally, I have been challenged on our attitude towards the societies. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Price) actually attacked the Government for forcing this Measure upon reluctant societies. At any rate that was the effect produced upon the House by what he said. There never was a more complete reversal of the actual state of affairs. In this matter of prolongation it is the approved socieites who have required
relief from the burdens which the country had laid upon them, and the approved societies, acting in this manner, have acted in the best interests of their own-members, the insured persons. They have acted in the interests and for the protection of the rights of the great body of their own members. It is absolutely necessary for them that there should be-some limit to the burden which is crushing their finances and, so far from this-being forced on the societies, I say without hesitation that the Clauses which we are considering in particular, have the cordial approval of the approved societies expressed in the best interests of their own members.
In a word, it is impossible to accept the Amendment because it would require a financial extension of which the scheme is incapable. We have been able to find the finance for the additional medical benefit from a source which cannot be renewed. We have been able to extend pension rights for two more years without an undue burden on the capital account of the fund. At present we can do no more, consistent with the two bedrock principles to which I have referred, and the arguments which we have heard to-day are arguments addressed, not towards the maintenance of sound insurance, but towards the wreckage of insurance and the substitution of an eleemosynary scheme.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I have been amazed at the Minister's speech. He has charged my hon. Friends, not with deliberate misrepresentation but with misrepresentation, and he has done so by pointing out that they have made the plea that the unemployed will be worse off under this Clause than they are at the moment. He has tried to convince the House that by this Clause the unemployed will be better off than they would otherwise have been. Will he say that the unemployed will be better off under this Clause than they would have been, had the prolongation scheme been carried on year by year as in the past? The comparison, remember, is not between what the unemployed get under this Bill and nothing; the comparison is between their position under this Clause and their position under a continuance of the prolongation scheme. The right hon. Gentleman knows that if this Bill had not been brought forward, no Government, of whatever political colour,
could have declined to carry on the prolongation scheme under the Expiring Laws Act. The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with the suggestion that he is improving the position of the aged unemployed by this Measure. He complained, strange to say, that hon. Members on this side had run away from the facts. I have never heard a Minister go so far away from the Amendment as the right hon. Gentleman went in his speech. If I may say so, I thought he was becoming a little angry for the first time in these discussions. But let me try to bring him back to the Amendment and to ask him some pertinent questions. The wording of this proviso is very strange. It is:
Provided that—
(a) no person shall by virtue of this Sub-section be treated as insured after the thirty-first day of December nineteen hundred and thirty-five.
Then there is a semi-colon, and it proceeds:
and
(b) a person whilst so treated as insured shall not be entitled to maternity benefit.
That would lead the uninstructed to believe that a person falling into that category would be entitled to maternity benefit up to 1935, but if you read the words carefully you find that such a person is not to receive maternity benefit at all, although that person is to be regarded as an insured person. If the Minister cannot explain that point, I feel sure that his deputy can do so. His deputy always turns to the Memorandum, though the Minister seems rather to disregard the Memorandum in certain eases. I think I am more faithful to the Amendment than the Minister has been, and I did not like his challenging my hon. Friends for not speaking to the point at issue. The Minister is entirely wrong in assuming that we are not in agreement with him that this scheme ought to be conducted on insurance and actuarial principles. It is a very old dodge, if I might use the word in this Assembly, when a person disagrees with you, to charge him with doing something that is radically wrong. The proposals that the Government are making in this Bill are not at all sacrosanct. They are not the only proposals that can be made and still keep the basis of the scheme on insurance principles.
As a matter of fact, not all the wisdom rests in the present Ministry of Health. The right hon. Gentleman turns round and says, "I have all the approved societies with me," and he says, "Look at the Consultative Council." If we bring forward an argument, he always shields himself behind the Consultative Council. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Meller) and myself have been on the Consultative Council, I think, when Ministers of several political parties have been in office, and I do not think I should be divulging a secret if I said that the Consultative Council is exactly what it Says it is. It is a council that the Minister can consult with. The Minister never asks for advice, and if the Consultative Council gave advice, he would probably never accept it anyhow. Consequently, he cannot hide behind the Consultative Council.
I want to tell the right hon. Gentleman something else. He knows full well in this connection that the actuary and his officers must know that this scheme has got to be financed in future with less and less help from the State. That, in fact, is at the root of the whole trouble. The present Government, I am sure, if I could get to know all the secrets that they have in their minds about this scheme, have come to the conclusion that it is time that the scheme ought to finance itself, without any State aid. The State now gives about £6,000,000 a year towards it, and my complaint is that the Ministry, in this Clause, is thrusting upon the Contributory Pensions Fund and the approved societies the financial liability of continuing these persons in insurance. I have not the figures by me, although they have been worked out, but the State, by the introduction of the contributory pension scheme, has gained millions upon millions of pounds per annum that would otherwise have had to be paid by the Treasury. If the contributory pension scheme was not in operation, every person below a given income would be entitled at 70 years of age to a pension of 10s. a week, without any contribution at all. Once the State decided that every man and every woman up to 65 should pay a contribution for a pension at 65 and over it thus relieved the State of paying any pension to those over 70 years of age, because they would be drawing contributory pensions, and therefore the State has gained
at every turn by the introduction of this contributory scheme.
The right hon. Gentleman is afraid of the cost of maternity benefit, medical benefit, and additional benefit. That appeared to me very humorous with regard to maternity benefit, because we are dealing here with persons over 58 years of age, and I cannot see the cost involved there. I will leave it to the Minister to tell us how much maternity benefit would cost in respect of 80,000 persons, all over 58 years of age. That really is a puzzle for the actuary. I think he could tell us the cost of medical benefit, because it is 8s. 6d. per insured person per annum. We protest, therefore, and we shall go into the Division Lobby, not because we want to disturb the insurance principle of this scheme, but because we deny the right of the Minister to claim that this Clause puts the unemployed person for pension purposes in a better position than he would have occupied if the prolongation scheme had been carried forward from year to year. As a protest against the claim which they make that they are helping the unemployed, we shall go into the Division Lobby in favour of this Amendment.

Mr. MAXTON: I rise to offer a few comments on the Amendment, but I do not want to anticipate the Third Reading Debate, in which I hope to participate, nor do I wish to repeat the points that were made on the Second Reading, in which I had an opportunity of saying a word or two, nor do I even want to go, where I imagine the Minister strayed in Ms speech on this Amendment, into matters which would be more appropriate to the Vote of Censure on Thursday next, but I want, in so far as I can, while keeping to the Amendment on the Paper, to support the remarks of my hon. Friend who has just spoken. The Minister accused the hon. Member for the Scotland division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) of suppressio veri. It is true that the Minister, throughout the discussion on this Bill, has carefully assumed that the prolongation of insurance was dropping automatically, and it is only on the assumption that the prolongation of insurance was going to be dropped that he can claim that the position of the unemployed man in health insurance is improved by this Bill and not very substantially worsened.
I do not think the dropping of the Prolongation Bill was practical politics. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that for some reason—I do not quite know what it was—during the period of office of the late Labour Government there was some delay in bringing forward the prolongation Measure. As a matter of fact, it was left by the then Minister of Health until the 11th hour of the last day of the last month, but when he did bring it forward in this rushed way, every section of the House united to get it through the House in all its stages in practically record time, proving that the general opinion of the House was so strong on this matter that it was not in contemplation that the unemployed should be left absolutely devoid of their health benefit, their sickness benefit, and their pension rights. It is true, as the Minister said, leaving the prolongation out of account, as he insists on doing, that this Bill makes it easier for an unemployed person who has dropped out of insurance to get back in as compared with the existing situation. He gets in on a 26 weeks' qualification instead of on a 104 weeks' qualification, or six months as against two years. That is true, but what this Bill does definitely do, while it makes it easier for a man to get in, is to make it much easier for him to get out. It deliberately makes arrangements for dropping people out of health insurance, and then, having made it easy for them to drop out in 1935, the right hon. Gentleman says, "I am conferring a benefit by letting them in on easy terms."
It is a curious kind of benefit. It is not the kind of benefit that most of us ourselves would wish to have conferred, to throw us out into the street, out of the shelter of the social insurance system of the country, and to say, when you are out, after years of unemployment, when you are absolutely down and out, when your personal fortunes are at their very lowest ebb, when everything looks blackest to the individual insured person—to say, just at this stage, "The State can no longer take responsibility for you, but, although when you are absolutely down and out we boot you out into the street and make you outlaws from the social services, yet, if you re-establish yourselves, if you can begin to get on the upgrade, if you can secure steady employment for six months and show that, in spite of all the difficulties against you,
you have overcome them, then, in six months' time, we will recognise you as having the right to medical attention, sick benefit, maternity benefit, old age pension, and widows' and orphans' pension." I do not think that is good ethics, I do not think it is good sociology, and I dissent strongly from the view that has been steadily expressed from the Treasury Bench that the economies involved in this matter can have any effect upon the general industrial and financial position of the country.
The Minister says that he has kept two considerations steadily before his mind in drafting this Clause, as in drafting others, namely, that the scheme must be a contributory one, and that the fund must be kept solvent; and that this is the only Measure that he could possibly produce having regard to these guiding principles. I do not accept these principles as being sound principles for all time, but I accept them as being the principles that have governed health insurance up till now. We are not discussing now whether fundamental changes should be made in the structure of health insurance, or I would hope that there would be a considerable volume of opinion throughout the whole House in favour of getting away from this approved society basis, where specially fortunate people in specially fortunate approved societies, fit lives, as it were, are in the one society and the bad lives, in bad industries, and in bad districts, are in another society, so that unto them that have is given and from them that have not is taken away even that they have. I hope that there would be a big volume of opinion for a complete reconstruction of the whole basis

of our health services, but that is not what we are discussing now; and, accepting the existing principle of contributory insurance through approved societies, the Minister takes care to exclude altogether from this discussion the possibility of maintaining the contributory basis and the solvency of the fund by the Treasury taking the responsibility of increasing their contribution.

The fund is made up by the contributions of three parties, namely, the insured person, the employer and the State. Admittedly the insured person and the employer are paying now as much as can be reasonably asked for. The State could easily shoulder the additional burden that would be imposed upon the fund by the Amendment. It would be a trivial addition to national expenditure, but it would return a far higher value in the health of the community; I would not go as far as to say in the happiness of the community, but, at any rate, in the saving of misery to the community. If the nation is in such a parlous financial state that it cannot shoulder for another year or two the miserable payments to the married women, to the aged women, to the widows and orphans, and to the mothers in childbirth; if the State is in such a parlous condition that these payments will bring down the whole economic structure, then for God's sake let the structure come down. Let it come down if it can only be saved at the expense of the aged and sick, and see if we cannot build something better.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes., 319; Noes, 50.

Division No. 250.]
AYES.
[6.33 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Borodale, Viscount
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W,)
Bossom, A. C.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Boulton, W. W.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Albery, Irving James
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Chalmers, John Rutherford


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Boyce, H. Lesile
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Bracken, Brendan
Christie, James Archibald


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Clarry, Reginald George


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Clayton, Dr. George C.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Broadbent, Colonel John
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Atholl, Duchess of
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Colville, John


Atkinson, Cyril
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Conant, R. J. E.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Cook, Thomas A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Cooke, Douglas


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Burnett, John George
Cooper, A. Duff


Balniel, Lord
Butler, Richard Austen
Copeland, Ida


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Cowan, D. M.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Caine, G. R. Hall-
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Cranborne, Viscount


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Craven-Ellis, William


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Castlereagh, Viscount
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Castle Stewart, Earl
Crooke, J. Smedley


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Reid, James S. C, (Stirling)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Remer, John R.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Ker, J. Campbell
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Robinson, John Roland


Denville, Alfred
Kimball, Lawrence
Rosbotham, S. T.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Ross, Ronald D.


Dickle, John P.
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Knebworth, Viscount
Rothschild, James A. de


Doran, Edward
Knight, Holford
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Runge, Norah Cecil


Drewe, Cedric
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Duggan, Hubert John
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Dunglass, Lord
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Eady, George H.
Law, Sir Alfred
Salmon, Major Isidore


Eastwood, John Francis
Leckie, J. A.
Salt, Edward W.


Eden, Robert Anthony
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lees-Jones, John
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Levy, Thomas
Scone, Lord


Elmley, Viscount
Lewis, Oswald
Selley, Harry R.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Liddall, Walter S.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mabane, William
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Fermoy, Lord
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
McCorquodale, M. S.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Smithers, Waldron


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McKie, John Hamilton
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
McLean, Major Alan
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Magnay, Thomas
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Stevenson, James


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Stones, James


Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Storey, Samuel


Goff Sir Park
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Strauss, Edward A.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Martin, Thomas B.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Graves Marjorie
Meller, Richard James
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Grenfell E. C (City of London)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mills. Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Grimston R. V.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Gritten W. G. Howard
Mitcheson, G. G.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Guest Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morrison, William Shepherd
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Guy J. C. Morrison
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Munro, Patrick
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Hales, Harold K.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Train, John


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Hanbury, Cecil
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Hanley, Dennis A.
North, Captain Edward T.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
O'Connor, Terence James
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Harbord, Arthur
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Harris, Sir Percy
Ormiston, Thomas
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Hartland, George A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Palmer, Francis Noel
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pearson, William G.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Peat, Charles U.
Weymouth, Viscount


Heilgers, Captain F. F A.
Penny, Sir George
White, Henry Graham


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hope Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Petherick, M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Hornby, Frank
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Potter, John
Womersley, Walter James


Horsbrugh, Florence
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Howard, Tom Forrest
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Pybus, Percy John
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Hunter Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Wragg, Herbert


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Hurd, Sir Percy
Ramsden, E.



Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Rankin, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.
Rea, Walter Russell
Commander Southby and Mr.Blindell.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Groves, Thomas E.
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Price, Gabriel


Briant, Frank
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hicks, Ernest George
Thorne, William James


Buchanan, George
Hirst, George Henry
Tinker, John Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, Sir William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Dagger, George
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William



George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. John.


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

CLAUSE 3.—(Rates of sickness and disablement benefits.)

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper: In page 5, line 7, leave out Clause 3.—(Mr. Rhys Davies.)

Mr. SPEAKER: I have found that it is not a good custom on the Report stage to select Amendments to leave out Clauses, especially those that have been fully discussed in Committee of the Whole House. It has been represented to me, however, that there was some particular point that was not fully discussed on this Clause, and I am going to allow this Amendment. I think that it would be for the convenience of the House to raise that question on the Amendment to omit Clause 3, and that we should have Divisions without any discussion on the other two Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), namely, in page 5, line 17, to leave out the word "five," and insert instead thereof the word "six"; and in line 19, to leave out the word "six," and insert instead thereof the word "seven."

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for your suggestion. I want to raise a point which I think was almost entirely neglected on the Committee stage. Every speaker dealt with sickness benefit, but I never heard very much said about disablement, especially from the angle from which I wish to approach it now. The point I want to make is this: sickness benefit finishes at the most after 26 weeks, and most spells of sickness last only a very short time. I should imagine the average sickness of insured persons does not last more than a fortnight or three weeks.
Consequently, very much more important considerations are raised when it is found that the Government are proposing to reduce the disablement benefit than would be the case in sickness benefit. I will put it to the House in this way. A man or a woman falls sick and after a fortnight or a month returns to work. They have lost their wages, perhaps, but that loss is made up to some extent by sickness benefit at 15s. for the man and 12s. for the woman, and where additional benefits are payable the man may get £l and the woman more than the statutory benefit. But there are cases which drag on for six, nine or 12 months.
It may astonish some Members to know that there are persons who have been drawing disablement benefit under this scheme continuously for 15 years without a break, and it is their cases to which I wish to direct special attention. A reduction of 2s. a week in sickness benefit for a few weeks is a very small and petty proposal by comparison with the reduction of disablement benefit which may be payable over a period of 15 or 20 years. I do not want to try to induce any undue human sympathy for the cases which I am putting forward, but let us consider the case of a woman suffering from tuberculosis, which is a long-drawn-out illness which may last for years; and there are other long-drawn-out complaints such as diabetes. Sometimes these chronic diseases seem to keep people alive almost longer than if they were free from that particular disease. When I was in Iceland I visited a leper colony there, and I heard from the medical officer of health the most strange statement ever made to me in regard to vital statistics. He told me that the length of life of inmates of that
leper colony was several years in excess of the life of the people outside. That shows that there are some diseases which, although they may put a man out of action, may still keep him alive for an even longer period than the average length of life.
On that score, therefore, I raise the point that if we have to accept a reduction of benefit at all I would prefer a reduction of sickness benefits alone, leaving the disablement benefit where it is. The disablement benefit is reduced to a very small sum indeed by this Clause. Sickness benefit for unmarried women remains the same. Disablement benefit for unmarried women is reduced from 7s. 6d. to 6s. For married women disablement benefit is reduced from 7s. 6d. to 5s. per week. What will happen will be this. There are married women whose husbands are unemployed or who, unfortunately, have never looked after the home and family. If those women fall sick the benefit income will go down to 5s. I am quite confident that whatever arguments may be employed in support of a reduction of these benefits it is true to say that the Government, by reducing the disablement benefit from 7s. 6d. to 5s,, is actually adding half a crown on to the cost of public assistance. Hon. Members who are more familiar with the administration of public assistance than I am know that practically every public assistance committee, while taking certain income of a family into account, do not take into account health insurance disablement benefit. The printed forms in some cases provide that the benefit is 7s. 6d. and they do not take that 7s. 6d. into account. What wall happen will be that the approved societies will gain 2s. 6d. and a charge of 2s. 6d. will be added to public assistance authorities.
We oppose this Clause, however, because we do not think this is the only method open to the Minister for dealing with the heavy claims of women. We think he ought to look into the causes of those heavy claims. When he tells us that the actuary has reported in this way or in that way we have to remember that the actuary has nothing to do with policy. All he does is to take the result of policy and tell us the facts. I wish the right hon. Gentleman had gone a little deeper to find out the causes of these increased claims, because there are
very serious causes behind them, and I am sure of one thing, that the reduction of benefits by itself will not save this scheme in the future. Hon. Gentlemen on my left were very critical of the words I used about doctors the other day. I return to the point. I have no hesitation an saying that one of the primary causes for the actuary's report and the introduction of this Clause is the loose certification by some of the medical profession.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Nonsense!

Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Member will not believe me. Let me read him the document issued by the Minister.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes, by your Minister.

Mr. DAVIES: This is a document issued by the Minister.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Your Minister.

Mr. DAVIES: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me proceed with my statement—

Mr. BUCHANAN: Give us the date.

Mr. DAVIES: —because I never interrupt him. The date is here. If I can find it I will quote it with pleasure. I cannot find it at the moment. At any rate this is what the report says, and I do not think the report has anything to do with any particular Minister, because these are admissions from members of the medical profession themselves, and I suppose they would admit all these things either to a Labour Minister or to a Conservative Minister. It is said that an inquiry was held and that:
a substantial proportion of the practitioners interviewed stated that they found themselves unable to certify strictly in accordance with their medical judgment for fear of losing patients.
That is the statement of the doctors themselves.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Where was this made?

Mr. DAVIES: On inquiry by the Minister of Health.

Mr. BUCHANAN: What inquiry? Who are the doctors?

Mr. DAVIES: Whatever I say about the doctors will probably not convince the
hon. Member, but it may convince other Members. The hon. Member can see the Report, No. 3291.

Mr. BUCHANAN: We have seen it. We know all about it, and that is more than you do.

Mr. MAXTON: And we know the date.

Mr. DAVIES: The report says further:
It was not infrequently said that although a patient might legitimately be considered to be not incapable of work the doctor knew how difficult it would be for that patient to find work under the prevailing conditions of employment, and allowed himself to be influenced by compassionate consideration in the direction of continuing to issue a certificate.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Shame! Awful!

Mr. DAVIES: I am astonished at the hon. Member favouring the doctors against the insured population. I have shown that there are causes which induce the actuary to make his report, and I repeat that the actuary is not concerned with policy. All he does is to take the results of the audit at the end of every quinquennial period and issue a report to the Minister. I do not think I would be wrong if I said that if policy had been designed to keep this scheme on actuarial lines we would not be called upon to deal with this Bill.
Let me mention one or two things I have mentioned before. Everybody knows about the £2,750,000 taken away from the funds in 1926. The approved societies have had to carry another item; they have had to carry a new charge during the last few years, the whole of the cost of medical benefits. Once upon a time the State used to shoulder part of that cost. Then the Ministry appointed about 200 regional medical officers to check the work of the panel doctors, and the cost of those regional officers has fallen upon the funds of the approved societies. In addition there is a new staff of regional dental officers who check dental claims. The Ministry has not been satisfied either with the medical or the dental practitioners under this scheme. I say, therefore, that unless there is a new conception of their duty among the professions towards this scheme nothing, not even a reduction of benefit, can save the scheme. If what they themselves admit is true, then the
scheme could not stand whatever we did here by way of reducing benefit.
We are dealing with several proposals and Amendments in the discussion of this Clause, and I wish to raise another point. Some Members of the House insist that all we have to do is to pool all the surpluses. Some societies are rich, they say, and some are very poor, but if the present economic depression continues much longer there will be no surpluses left in any society. Further, it has been said by the Royal Commission that if the State insists upon pooling—although I favour pooling as far as the money will go round—some societies will see to it that in live or ten years they have no surplus to hand over to other societies. That is one of the dangers if we deal with this problem by pooling alone. Then the Ministry itself is responsible in part for bringing the funds of this scheme to their present position. A few years ago the Ministry induced societies to separate the funds of the men from the funds of the women, saying that they wanted to find out what the women cost in the way of benefit by comparison with the men. The hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary will know that at the instigation of the Ministry societies have separated the funds of the men from the women, and in future benefits will be paid on the surpluses accruing separately to the women's side and on the surpluses accruing to the men's side. If the surplus on the men's side is more favourable by the way, that cannot be used to pay the women, or vice versa; and let it be said that in some cases the women's funds are healthier than the men's funds.
7.0 p.m.
One thing I hope the Minister will do above all, and that is not give any support to the idea which is creeping into some minds that there ought to be once more a further separation of married women from single women in the same society for valuation purposes. If we adopt that policy we might as well say that every insured person shall have a separate ledger account. He would then merely put the money in and take out exactly what he has put in. That is not insurance. Although I am very concerned that these schemes shall be kept within certain financial limits, I am not at all happy to see a tendency of this sort—not only one society becoming richer and one-society becoming poorer, but one section
of the same society becoming richer than another section of that society. That is not a national insurance principle. Then I want to put this to the Minister. I have never been able to understand the attitude of the Ministry towards this problem, especially in view of what has already happened this afternoon. I feel sure we would not be unwilling on this side of the House to adopt the alternative—but only as an alternative to Clause 3—put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), provided the Minister would wipe out Clause 3.
As one who has had to administer the scheme I think I am right in saying that if we had the means whereby we could choose the type of person we were admitting into the societies we would have avoided the reduction of benefit altogether, because I think it is agreed on all hands that there are certain types both of men and women now insured who are not insurable and who do not fall to be dealt with in this scheme. Finally, I am not convinced by the argument put forward by the Actuary. I do not criticise him, because he has to take what the results are: he has nothing to do with policy; but I am totally unable to believe that every married woman and single woman is in fact more unhealthy to-day than they were eight or 10 years ago. I do not think we shall be able to settle the financial problem of this scheme either for men or women until the panel doctor is brought into a closer financial relationship with the approved societies.
I will tell the Minister what I mean by that. When the panel doctor issues a certificate—I am not criticising him on that score—he never sees the effect of the issuing of that certificate on the funds of the society. Unfortunately, some insured persons think that the medical certificate is nothing but a voucher for receiving benefit. It is not exactly a voucher. It is evidence in favour of a claim for benefit. I do say, therefore, that we ought to have a better relationship—and ultimately that is what is bound to happen—and the medical profession will have to secure a greater interest in the societies; there will have to be greater co-operation between the societies and the medical profession. I feel sure that unless there is a better understanding between the panel practitioner the society and the insured person
as to the meaning of this scheme, nothing we do to-day can avail us very much. In order to draw attention to these problems, therefore, I beg to move my Motion.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I should not have intervened but for the remark just made by the last speaker. I thought we were to deal with the question of the rates of sickness benefit, whether the 12s. should be reduced to 10s. and the 7s. 6d. to 5s. I did not understand that we were discussing the question of whether doctors gave proper certificates or not, and it came to me as a surprise that we should be dealing with the whole ramifications and the rights and wrongs of doctors. I should have thought that was not the subject for discussion on this Motion, and at least we should have known that it was coming before the House. I, too, like my hon. Friend, took the precaution to read this circular some time ago. It was issued by the Minister of Health of the Labour Government of 1930. It was a deliberate act on his part to hound the doctors to be less humane to poor people than formerly. If he and his colleagues are brought to hounding the doctors on that score we must leave it to him. Personally in times like these I should always be ready to associate with anyone who is inclined to treat the poor more humanely. If the Labour party are proud of the desire of their Front Bench for inhuman treatment by doctors, then I make them a present of their Front Bench and I am glad that my association is severed.
This circular which has been read out says, if not in those exact words, that an inquiry has been made, and certain doctors say there has been loose certification, but it does not tell us who conducted the inquiry, who were the doctors examined, what districts they were drawn from, who examined them, whether evidence was taken on oath, or what kind of tribunal it was. All of this is flung at us, and because it comes from the Front Bench they say we are to accept it and are expected to believe it. I am not accepting it. When I want to inpugn the doctors I have the right to give them some trial, as indeed we should claim for ourselves. In the case of Unemployment Insurance if I were to make a statement against an official, I should need to go to the Commissioners, as I have done, and make a statement there,
for cross-examination, in the light of day, and pin my name and reputation to it. Nothing like that is happening here. It is just a bald statement that some doctors have said it. We are not given their names or those of the people who carried out the examination. Just because it was done by the Labour Government we are told it is sacred and it must be right. Anybody who knows the history of the Labour Government would be foolish to take that seriously. I dismiss it, for this reason—not because the evidence is right or wrong, but because there is no evidence adduced as to the nature of the examination. Neither the source of the evidence nor the tribunal can be adduced. I think that is a fair and reasonable claim to make. I simply reject it because the evidence has no proper relationship to the evidence which ought to be provided.
Then there is another charge which has been brought against the doctors. There is another crime they have committed. It is said that they are too compassionate, and that they give certificates on compassionate grounds. Just imagine the Labour party, built up by the poor, attacking the medical profession because they are kind to the people. The first charge was that there was looseness of certification, and the second was that the doctors are compassionate, that they do not go about their business in the same way as the Court of Referees, who say at the Employment Exchanges, "The Act must be observed." A court of referees do not show too much human sympathy. The complaint has been made that they are an automatic machine and do not show that compassion and fellow-feeling and understanding that make life kindly. That was our complaint—that the ever-grinding machine left out the human element. Now along comes the complaint from the Labour party that the doctors will not work that grinding machine. Sometimes judges operate the law not in the strict light of the law but with human kindness, and say they will be decent and show some spirit of kindness and act on compassionate grounds. Now we are told that while that may be done by the judges it must not be done by the doctors. That is an amazing position for the Labour party. Then we have discovered another thing, that they were
prepared to allow the new Clause of the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) to come on to the Statute Book in order to get something else.

Mr. TINKER: On what ground does the hon. Member say that the Labour party accepted the Amendment.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not want to be unfair, but what was said by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) was that if they could get Clause 3 rejected they were prepared to accept the new Clause.

Mr. TINKER: That is not the same thing.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. Member stated that in the hearing of the House. That is the position. I am not surprised that after cutting down unemployment benefits the Government should now be reducing the benefit of married women. These Women are not getting justice. We are dealing here with reduced benefits and we can find no justification for reducing them. The doctors are not the cause of the reduced benefits. The Minister said that £500,000 could be saved on administration, and that £2,500,000 was to be saved altogether. The £500,000 was for administration. Over £1,000,000 was to be saved from the reduced benefits and there was another £1,000,000 from another section, making £2,500,000 in all. What was the £500,000 from administration? It was in respect of the tightening-up of certification. That is the administration and £500,000, it is said, is not enough. It is said, "We must get busier and make it £750,000." What a game! I hope that the result of the by-election pending in Montrose will be a proud day for Montrose.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to confine his remarks to the Question before the House.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes, Sir, but I can take no responsibility for my irrelevancy. Attacks were made upon us which were entirely out of order. We are usually blamed for making attacks. I am not going to continue on this subject, but I want to say that it is becoming noticeable that people are being hounded on in this way. I will repeat what I said, that people who have been kind when the
poor, in times like these, are faced with wholesale poverty, should not be attacked. We would sooner be associated with the doctors in times like these, because they are men who are kind to the poor, than we would be associated with a party who would rather have the scheme actuarially sound and run as a soulless machine. We will defend the doctors and anybody else who show leniency and kindness to the poverty-stricken poor.

Dr. O'DONOVAN: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has shot his bolt and departed. He seems to have some obsessional complex, and it is to be regretted that it is obsessional in regard to the panel doctors. If there is such a thing as loose certification, I do not think it will ever be corrected by loose speaking that covers looser thinking. You cannot help a Debate by distilling into it the very essential spirit of Gradgrind. An approved society depends for its efficiency upon good certification, and good certification will never be obtained by doctors who are under the lash of actuaries of venerable aspect but of soulless intellects.
I was distressed to hear the hon. Member say that doctors should come into closer contact with approved societies, for if the speech that we have heard was in fact the spirit by which the approved societies are guided in this country, then the greater distance the doctors keep from these approved societies the better for the sick and the better for the doctors. There is no question that the certification of married women is difficult, and there is no doubt whatever in my mind that the certification must be done with that consideration for the sufferer that I hope will always animate the panel doctor. A married woman bringing up a family is subject for years to a greater stress than any industrial hazard known to man. Doctors know that, and married men know that, but it is strange, when you are lifted to the calm and cool air of the board room of the approved societies, that those few human and medical facts are so soon forgotten. Loose certification has never yet been proved. When it is well and publicly known that that extremely loosely-worded report has been attacked paragraph by paragraph in the organs of the British Medical Association, I was hurt that a Member speaking from the Front Bench, a man of light and learn-
ing, should have thought it worthy of his bench to make so ex parte a statement and to conceal from the House that every sentence in that report adverse to the panel doctor is combated and denied.
I can take no exception to any charge that is made, as long as it is admitted that the man charged believes that he has an answer, but to put forward with authority the uncertificated admissions of unnamed people as a definite charge of dishonest conduct of those in charge of public funds, is unworthy of what, up-to-date I believed to be the standard of the Front Opposition Bench. An argument can be put graciously or ungraciously. I regret that the hon. Member for Westhoughton is not here for me to say to his face that I have seldom heard charges made in such ungracious language. The regional medical officers do not exist to check the work of their colleagues; they are brother colleagues, ready to help the juniors in their difficult work and to promote cordial inter-action between all the forces of public medicine. For instance, I myself am responsible for a large department dealing with that disfiguring and destructive disease known as lupus. The approved societies, represented to us as the last word in benevolence, are continually seeking to have the allowance paid to the sick cut off, under the impression that those who are losing their noses, ears and whole portions of their faces are fit to work, because their biceps are still sound.
Regional medical officers are of the greatest assistance to me. When complaints are made to them that these patients are away from work too long, those officers, represented to the House as an expensive check on bad work, are of the greatest service in putting my opinion about my patients to the approved societies, whereupon the complaints are withdrawn and the sick pay is continued. Regional medical officers are experienced doctors who have had from five to 15 years' work in general practice, and they would resent from their hearts the suggestion that they exist as policemen or as detectives or guardians of the public purse. They are most useful public officials. They are seldom officious and, in my experience, are always helpful and are seldom a check.
We are told that doctors should have a new conception of their work.
That is a most startling and explosive thing. The medical profession has existed for 2,000 years as a coherent and traditional body, and it is an explosive thought that a new conception of medicine should come in. Our sole object is to help the sick and to keep the sound alive, and the only new object that could come in would be for us—to use an American phrase—to continue with a newer right to "bump them off" for having lived too long and for having exhausted the funds of the approved societies for too many years. I hope we have heard the last of these loose attacks upon the panel doctor's job. It is a humble job, and it is not one that enjoys the limelight. The panel doctor is not gifted with speech, and he does not enter the market place or the senate house to defend himself. I am only too pleased to say to this House that the panel doctors whom I know—and I know them by hundreds—are as honourable in their intentions and as upright in their certification as any politician is in the conduct of public business.

Mr. TINKER: The hon. Member for Mile End (Dr. O'Donovan) has defended the doctors, and I honestly agree with him as to what their difficulties are. When we take a Division on this matter, shall we find the hon. Member in the Division Lobby with us carrying his support to a practical test? Clause 3 is mentioned in this Debate because it closed the benefits to married women on account of certain statistics given out by the actuary. In his speech the hon. Member suggested that the actuary had no right to do this kind of thing, but it is because of that that these married women are being attacked and because of what is called loose certification. The Minister is faced with the position that the Insurance Fund must be made actuarially sound and that benefits must be taken from somebody. Clause 3 is quite definite as to where those benefits are to be taken from. I say that that is wrong. I say that he has no right to attack the married or the single women simply because they have drawn too much out of the fund. If that is correct, and if he is not doubting their integrity, then it is clear that those women are more in need of support from the fund than any other section. If hon. Members opposite support the Minister in his contention to pick out one
particular class, they are not honest in their intentions—putting it in the Parliamentary sense. If the Minister really wants to put the fund on a sound basis he ought to lower the benefits to everyone.

Dr. O'DONOVAN: I do not know what "honest in the Parliamentary sense" means. I understand what muddle-headedness means, but Parliamentary honesty is a new thing to me.

Mr. TINKER: There are certain things in this House that have to be understood. When we say, "dishonesty" it is not a question of being dishonest in law; so I put it in the way I did. I ought to have put it quite straight, Parliament or no Parliament, and to have said what I meant. I put it as easily as I could. You can knock a man down in two ways, quietly or drastically. I was knocking the hon. Member down quietly when I said that.
There is no ambiguity about Clause 3. I was in some doubt about Clause 1. The Minister said, quite rightly, that if we read the White Paper that would make the matter clear to hon. Members' intelligence. I got a White Paper and I have perused it, and it is clear what the Minister means by a reduction of standard benefit and of disablement benefit. There is no question as to what they will have to pay under Clause 3. I do not want hon. Members opposite to attempt to get away from the facts by trying to defend the doctors and saying that they are quite honest and above board, and then to vote in the Division Lobby against the Clause standing part of the Bill. They are quite sincere to the married women and to the single women. They will say that they ought not to be made to suffer as they are in this Bill. If the Bill is to be put on a sound financial basis, everyone must pay a share towards it, and not one section alone. I would ask the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) not to pay too much attention to these benches. We are here in a common cause and there, across the Floor of the House, is the enemy.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the hon. Member forgive me? The attack was made upon me. I was sitting here with no intention of speaking. I intimated to Mr. Speaker that I wanted to speak only
on one or two Amendments in which I was directly interested. An attack was deliberately made upon me from the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) singled me out.

Mr. THORNE: No. I was here and heard what the said.

Mr. TINKER: I would ask the hon. Member for Gorbals not to direct too much attention to these benches.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Lecture your own benches on that!

Mr. TINKER: It proves to me the truth of the old saying that once the members of a party quarrel among themselves, they leave the masters free to do as they want to do. When we find the Labour party quarrelling with each other, the Minister can merely laugh and say, "Leave them to themselves. They will rend each other, and we can get all we want." When the married women are being attacked, there should be no question as to our duty in the movement to try to resist an encroachment against those people. I hope that the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mrs. Tate) and the hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) who spoke earlier, and who defended the married women by speaking so earnestly and well against the proposed new Clause, will come with us into the Division Lobby and prove that they are also earnest and sincere. I trust that when the Division is taken we shall get some definite indication of what they think in regard to Clause 3, and that they will resist the encroachment on the right of these people.

7.30 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: I meant to give a silent vote in favour of this Amendment, but I am impelled to say a few words in support of my vote because of the remarkable arguments which were used by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) in moving the Amendment. He said that he could not conceive that the health of married women was any worse now than it was eight or 10 years ago, but I would ask him whether he would seriously deny that eight years of increasing unemployment may very well have increased the ill-health among married women, owing to the privations which they have had to bear and the increased burden which has been put
upon them of trying to add to the family income while doing all the rest of their household work. The hon. Member concluded that increased ill-health among married women would not account for the whole of the increase in claims, and that part of it must be accounted for by loose certification by the doctors. I have little doubt that loose certification may have something to do with it, and doctors accused of loose certification might well use the argument of their forefather: "A woman tempted me," because there would be no loose certification on the part of doctors if there were no loose claims on the part of married women.
All of us who have the state of the fund and also the honour of married women at heart feel that, granted that these claims are partly due to increased ill-health and partly due to unsound claims by married women, this Clause is not the right way to meet the situation. It merely assumes that the deficit will be a continuing one, and meets it by punishing the innocent with the guilty. We want a more drastic way of meeting the difficulty. So far as it is due to ill-health, we ought to have a thorough inquiry which would satisfy us as to the amount of the ill-health, and the same is the case as regards the question of loose: certification. I would remind the House of what was done in connection with unemployment insurance before the benefit was lowered. We had the Blanesburgh Committee, which not only took much evidence, but made an actual test. It scheduled certain areas and took a number of cases which showed certain suspicious features, and examined into those cases to see whether the common impression prevailing in the public mind at the time, that many people were claiming benefit who were not entitled to it, was justified or not; and the result of that test was to show that, although there was a certain number of unsound claims, the number was far fewer than was generally believed. I believe that the same result would happen if there were a test among married women, and I would ask the Minister, before this Clause is accepted, as I fear it will be, whether he will not give us some inquiry into the reasons for this increase in claims.
I do not see why such an inquiry should not be carried out on much the same
lines as the Blanesburgh test. What is to prevent the selection of certain typical areas where there are heavy sickness claims among married women, and the investigation of every one of those cases which presents what are usually regarded as suspicious features, such as a large proportion of young claimants claiming disablement benefit, or very frequent claims on the part of married women. If the result shows that there is a large amount of sickness on the part of married women, I submit that the proper way to deal with such a situation would be, not to lower the benefits of married women alone, but to spread the cost of whatever economies are necessary over the whole body of claimants. We have not received a satisfactory answer as to why that cannot be done. The Minister has told us that it could not be done here and now by pooling the surpluses, but not why it cannot be done by a wider use than is at present made of the central contributory fund. I appeal, in the interests both of the fund and of the honour of married women, for some inquiry into the whole cause of these excessive claims among them. I was glad to see that the new Clause proposed by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) was rejected, because, on the top of Clause 3, and without such an inquiry as I have suggested, it would have done grave injustice. There is this to be said for that Clause, that it was an attempt to get at causes, and not merely to deal with symptoms, and we want something of that sort before we can settle down comfortably to the idea that the married women of this country are to rest under a permanent shadow of discredit, and are to be penalised as a body by the lowering of their all too meagre scale of benefits.

Mr. LEWIS: The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) had a good deal to say about attacks on married women and the taking away of people's rights, but it does not seem to me that a speech of that kind is very helpful. No one is attacking married women or endeavouring to take away anyone's rights. All that we are discussing to-day is the best and fairest way of distributing between the different classes of insured persons the total amount that is available in
benefit. That amount depends on the amount that comes into the fund. I think that the force of that argument was felt by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, because he gave the House to understand that, so far as he was concerned, if reductions in benefit were necessary he would rather that they were made in sickness benefits than in disablement benefit. That is a perfectly arguable proposition; it is a question of the fair allocation of the benefit that it is possible to pay from the fund; but I would point out that the hon. Member is hardly justified in using that argument, because only a week ago, during the Committee stage, he voted for an Amendment, not to reduce further the sickness benefit, but to increase it, and I do not see how he can come before the House to-day and argue that he would rather there were a reduction in sickness benefit than in disablement benefit when only last week he was trying to increase the amount proposed to be allocated to sickness benefit.
The plain truth of the matter is, of course, that the law as it stands at this moment, without this Bill, provides for benefits which are greater than the fund can stand, and therefore, there are only two alternatives before us. The one is to increase the amount of money coming into the fund by increasing the contributions, and in no quarter of the House has that method been supported. The other alternative is to provide for a reduction of certain benefits in order to make the fund balance. It seems to me that anyone who supports individual Amendments to increase the amount of benefit paid in selected cases to selected classes of insured persons is really doing nothing that is in the true interests of insured persons as a whole, because, if that course were followed, the only result would be the ultimate bankruptcy of the fund.

Mr. MAXTON: We have every intention of following the point of view expressed by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), and every vote in this group will be cast for the Amendment and against the Clause. But we want to make it fairly well known, both in the House and outside, that in doing that we dissociate ourselves completely from the ideas expressed by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) in moving the Amendment. If
anything could have dissuaded us from supporting the Amendment, his speech certainly would. I make these remarks in order that it may be very plainly known that, while we are opposing this Clause and supporting the Amendment, and shall be in the Lobby with the hon. Member for Westhoughton, if he is still in the House, we dissent in the strongest possible way from the views that he expressed in his speech.

Sir H. YOUNG: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that I shall be most closely following both the spirit and the letter of your guidance to the House if I adhere, on this Amendment, rather closely to the new matter that has been raised in the course of the interesting speeches to which we have just listened. Let me deal, in the first place, with the criticism of the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), who suggested, I think inaccurately, that the proposals of this Bill were not based upon adequate statistical inquiry into the field with which we had to deal. It would be impossible to deal with this matter in the same simple and straightforward manner as with the question of unemployment. The question whether or not a man or woman is unemployed is capable of a very much simpler decision than the question whether or not a married woman is sick within the meaning of the insurance scheme. Nevertheless, we have done our best throughout, long before my time, to secure a proper basis on which to frame the proposals contained in this Bill. In the first place, I would refer to the report of the Government Actuary on National Health Insurance covering the period from 1921 to 1927, which was published in 1930. For the purposes of that report, a sample was taken including some 500,000 men and 400,000 women, whose experience was carried right through the three years 1921, 1922, and 1923—no inadequate basis. In the second place, I would refer to another and even more important inquiry on the certification of incapacity for work, including the results of recent investigations as to the causes of increase of claims for sickness and disablement benefit, which was published in a Memorandum, No. 329./I.C. In that inquiry there were no fewer than 29,516 references on which to base a judgment in regard to this matter. The hon. Member will see, therefore, that
there was a most careful and prolonged investigation of the facts before the practical proposals which are now placed before the House were framed.

Miss RATHBONE: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that that inquiry investigated the individual cases of women to see whether they were really sick? Unless that was done, the result would not bear on the question whether the excessive claims were really due to increased sickness or whether they were due to loose certification or malingering.

Sir H. YOUNG: That, of course, would be the principal point of the inquiry in question.
Now I come to the new arguments which have been advanced upon this occasion, the arguments attacking the reduction of disablement benefit in comparison with the reduction of sickness benefit. I, first of all, call attention to the actual reduction made which, in the case of married women, is from 7s. 6d. to 5s., and in the case of single women from 7s. 6d. to 6s. The hon. Member who proposed the Amendment dealt with the hard circumstances of those who were very long ill. Of course, they are more concerned with disablement than with sickness benefit, and, in the case of the man or woman drawing disablement benefit during long sickness, I agree that there is there an argument against the reduction of disablement benefit in comparison with sickness benefit. But it is disposed of by the single fact that the average duration for the drawing of disablement benefit is 22 weeks. The argument, therefore, in favour of disablement as compared with sickness benefit, as far as figures are the basis, disappears. Of course, it is again not a pleasant thing to have to propose to reduce this benefit. It is only done under the stress of sheer necessity upon the basis upon which we proceed, but the statement of the actuary in his report—I must not call it a recommendation, because I am reminded, quite correctly, that actuaries are not concerned with policy—was that, if we were to balance the scheme and make it solvent again, we should have to reduce disablement benefit to 5s. for all women in insurance. He stated that his requirement for solvency was that that reduction should be made for single women as well as for married women. In applying the full reduction to married women
only I have, so to speak, managed to let them off more lightly than strict actuarial requirements would demand, so that really is a matter for congratulation rather than for criticism.
I said on the Second Heading that one has been guided to some extent in fixing the relation between sickness and disablement benefit by the practical advice given by practical men that you ought to try to preserve a certain ratio between sickness and disablement benefit, and that in their experience the ratio that they would recommend was the ratio of one half. The effect of the proposals of the Bill is in every case to fix the ratio of disablement benefit to sickness benefit at one-half. Speaking, as I do, to so many Members who are practically acquainted with the administration of health insurance, I need not dwell upon the reasons for keeping disablement benefit down to about that ratio of sickness benefit. You cannot go on with the full benefit for the whole time, and experience shows that good administration requires that there should be a drop of 50 per cent.
The hon. Member who moved the Amendment made one point which, on reflection, he will see was not a good one. His criticism was that, by reducing disablement benefit from 7s. 6d. to 5s., we are casting upon the local authorities the burden of the extra 2s. 6d. He forgot something that one would not have expected him to forget. He forgot that in the granting of relief the public assistance committees are not allowed by Statute to take ino consideration the 7s. 6d. from health insurance. You might therefore, reduce the disablement benefit from 7s. 6d. not only to 5s. but to nil before you produced any results upon the granting of Poor Law relief.
The last points with which I have to deal are suggestions for alternative methods of covering the deficit which I have to cover. I have dealt with them all before and I will only summarise the reply in the briefest words. I was asked, "Why do you not get the economies you need from better administration?" That was the contention of the hon. Member who spoke first, which got him into such difficulties with hon. Members below the Gangway. The answer is that I have already made the utmost allowance which it is reasonable to make for
a reduction of expenditure from, that source. I have allowed for £500,000. What I have heard to-day from some of my hon. Friends behind me makes me wonder whether I have not gone too far in that respect. I am asked, "How do you expect to get it?" I will quote one or two possible methods. I am making no charges of fraud or malingering on the part of wide classes of the insured, and I am certainly making no charge of inefficiency or failure of duty on the part of the medical profession. I am far too well acquainted with the labours of the medical profession to be so unfair or so foolish. The direction in which an improvement can be looked for, even to the extent for which I have allowed, is the direction of a general improvement of standards of administration. I have been challenged to say how that may be done. I will give an instance—by a wider use of the regional medical officer in co-ordinating and comparing the treatment of doubtful cases. If you have some general authority to whom you can go to produce a levelling up and a co-ordination of standards, that has often had a very good effect in improving the standard as a whole. Consequently I would say the most natural and the most wholesome way, beneficial both to the insured persons and to the finance of the scheme, is by a better system of visitation on the part of the approved societies so as to make themselves more closely acquainted with individual cases. Money spent in that direction would be well spent. It would probably be an economy in the long run.
I am asked, Why not accept as an alternative to this Clause the proposal put forward early this evening by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. Williams), that all married women should go into Class K. In common with hon. Members below the Gangway, I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) practically declare himself an adherent of that Clause, because it had appeared to me that there were elements in that Clause which were much too hard in the tests that they would impose on married women. However, I understand that in his opinion I should have been mistaken in that supposition. But be that as it may—it is a matter which will be of more interest on future occasions than on this—the simple fact is
that to suppose for a moment that the present deficiency can be covered by that measure in regard to Class K is to show oneself really not in possession of the simplest facts of the case. I am dealing with a deficiency of £850,000 a year, and the most optimistic estimate of what could be gained by the harshest administration of the Class K Clause does not amount to more than £50,000 a year. Sometimes in these Debates one wishes one could come into more close relation with the actual facts.
That same consideration applies really to the alternative suggestion made by the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) that we should adopt the method of pooling. I do not want to try to raise at this stage the wide question of pooling, of its honesty as between society and society or even of its practicability in view of the accepted basis of the scheme in administration by approved societies. But I will say a single word about the aspect of its being commensurate with the amount that we have to find. If you take the only practical scheme of pooling which has ever been proposed, that is the scheme proposed by the Royal Commission, and if you translate it into the figures that now prevail, allowing for a fair distribution and pooling the benefits over the whole field of the societies—I could not do otherwise—you get a sum for the women's societies of £50,000 a year to deal with your deficit of £850,000. I think it is clear that all these alternatives are attempts to sweep the sea out with a mop.

Miss RATHBONE: The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the suggestion that I made that it might be met by an increase from the Central Fund. I did not suggest the, pooling of surpluses because the right hon. Gentleman dealt with that the other day. I suggested an increase in the contributory fund.

Sir K. YOUNG: I am afraid the sad truth is that that is only the ostrich pushing its head one inch deeper into the sand. If you throw the burden on to the Central Fund, you have to refresh the Central Fund. You can only do that by contributions from the societies. If the contributions from the societies are increased, you drive more societies into deficiency, and the only remedy for that is to increase the contributions, which
none of us is prepared to suggest. I think I have dealt with all the new matter which has been produced, and the House will probably be prepared now to come to a decision.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I should like to stress the point that has been made once or twice that the ultimate cost of all these savings will ultimately come back on to the local authorities, who will have to increase their charges. I represent a local authority where the rates are already 27s. 6d., where deputations come to the Ministry of Health seeking for some amelioration of their condition and asking how they can be relieved of some of their commitments and liabilities. Instead of getting relief, they are constantly increased until the burden is becoming intolerable. The shopkeepers are being ruined. Every ratepayer is feeling the strain, and, what with unemployment and general destitution, everyone who has to pay rates in my division has my complete sympathy. Instead of placing increased burdens upon them, there ought to be some kind of relief from the burdens which they have to carry. I am not going to make any attack whatever upon what is called loose certification. I want to dissociate myself entirely from what has been said upon that matter. I do not speak as an authority upon the administration of this Act; I have had nothing whatever to do with it; but I know what the effects will be of cutting down the small quantity of relief which is now given. I want to insist that in all probability much of the increased burden which has come in the last few years has arisen from the burden of unemployment and destitution which has fallen upon the homes of so many millions of working people. It is the mothers who suffer most under those conditions. It is they who sacrifice food, it is they who sacrifice their health in many ways, and it is not surprising that there has been an increased demand so far as married women are concerned.
This call upon the resources of the approved societies is precisely what one might have expected in the circumstances. One would expect that there would be an increase of sickness. As a matter of fact, working people are too prone to go on suffering when they ought to be getting relief from medical men. There is far too much
illness accepted by the working people. They deliberately do not go on to these funds. They keep off them as long as they can possibly do so, because they would rather continue to work sick and get their wages than accept the modicum of relief which comes from this Health Insurance Fund. But when it comes to a question of unemployment, when all the amenities of the home are being destroyed, when food is short, when children are suffering, when the mother begins to go short of all the things that her nature requires, I am not surprised that there are claims on the Health Insurance Fund. I am only surprised that they are not bigger than they in fact are.
It all comes to this, that the whole scheme is totally inadequate for dealing with the problems which confront us, and until the State takes over the matter and sets up a State medical service of a very wide character, we shall not be able to deal with the sickness which afflicts the great mass of our people. So far as increased confidence is concerned, how long is this to go on under present conditions? Are conditions going to improve? Do the Government think that the industrial condition is going to improve? Or do they think that it is going to get worse? If it is going to get worse, then this fund will get worse, bankruptcy will still stare it in the face, and it will ultimately come to this, that if you cannot increase the contribution of the em-

ployed man, if you cannot increase the contribution of the employer, then if these funds are to be secured at all and you are going to continue to deal with the sickness of the mass of your people, the State will have to make an increased contribution, whether they like it or whether they do not. All this talk of economy will have to go by the board. I am protesting from that point of view against the whole tenure of this Bill.

In the General Election of last October, the National Government gave a pledge. They said, or the Prime Minister said, "The poor and the unemployed will not be forgotten." They have not been forgotten. Whenever there is any saving to be made, the poor are remembered; it is they who have to make it. It is they who have to bear the stress and the strain; it is they who go short of the actual necessities of life itself. The whole thing is a hideous fiasco of bad management, crass carelessness and cold-blooded action so far as the mass of the people are concerned, not only in the individual, but in. the great distressed areas of the country where they are suffering in a two-fold degree. It is from that point of view that I make my protest, and I am pleased to go into the Lobby in favour of this proposal.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'ten,' in line 12, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 263; Noes, 49.

Division No. 251.]
AYES.
[8.5 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Crooke, J. Smedley


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Broadbent, Colonel John
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Albery, Irving James
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Crossley, A. C.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Burnett, John George
Denman, Hon. R D.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Denville, Alfred


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Caine, G. R. Hall-
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.


Apsley, Lord
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Dickie, John P.


Atholl, Duchess of
Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Dixey, Arthur C. N.


Atkinson, Cyril
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Dower, Captain A. V. G.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S)
Drewe, Cedric


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Chalmers, John Rutherford
Duggan, Hubert John


Balniel, Lord
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Clarry, Reginald George
Dunglass, Lord


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Clayton, Dr. George C.
Eady, George H.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Eastwood, John Francis


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Conant, R. J. E.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Blindell, James
Cook, Thomas A.
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Bossom, A. C.
Cooke, Douglas
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Boulton, W. W.
Cooper, A. Duff
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Copeland, Ida
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Cranborne, Viscount
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
McKie, John Hamilton
Salmon, Major Isidore


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Salt, Edward W.


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McLean, Major Alan
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Fox, Sir Gilford
McLean, Dr. w. H. (Tradeston)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Ganzoni, Sir John
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Scone, Lord


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Gillett, Sir George Master man
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Martin, Thomas B.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Meller, Richard James
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Graves, Marjorie
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Greaves-Lord. Sir Walter
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Greene, William P. C.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Smithers, Waldron


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Grimston, R. V.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Samerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Morrison, William Shepherd
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Nail, Sir Joseph
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Hales, Harold K.
North, Captain Edward T.
Stevenson, James


Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
O'Connor, Terence James
Stones, James


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Storey, Samuel


Hanley, Dennis A.
Ormiston, Thomas
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Strauss, Edward A.


Harbord, Arthur
Palmer, Francis Noel
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hartland, George A.
Peat, Charles U.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Penny, Sir George
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Petherick, M.
Summersby, Charles H.


Hornby, Frank
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Howard, Tom Forrest
Pike, Cecil, F.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Potter, John
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Todd, A. L. S (Kingswinford)


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Ramsden, E.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Rankin, Robert
Turton, Robert Hugh


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rea, Walter Russell
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Ker, J. Campbell
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
White, Henry Graham


Kimball, Lawrence
Remer, John R.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Wise, Alfred R.


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Withers, Sir John James


Levy, Thomas
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Womersley, Walter James


Lewis, Oswald
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Liddall, Walter S.
Robinson, John Roland
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Rosbotham, S. T.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Ross, Ronald D.
Wragg, Herbert


Llewellin, Major John J.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Runge, Norah Cecil



Mabane, William
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sir Victor Warrender and Mr.


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Harcourt Johnstone.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Milner, Major James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Harris, Sir Percy
Parkinson, John Allen


Batey, Joseph
Hicks, Ernest George
Price, Gabriel


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hirst, George Henry
Rathbone, Eleanor


Briant, Frank
Janner, Barnett
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jenkins, Sir William
Thorne, William James


Buchanan, George
John, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, David
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Logan, David Gilbert



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McGovern, John
Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr.


Groves, Thomas E.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Duncan Graham.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James

Mr. ATKINSON: I beg to move, in page 5, line 12, to leave out from the word "woman" to the word "and," in line 14, and to insert instead thereof the words "eleven shillings and sixpence."
The object of this Amendment is to secure an all-round reduction of sixpence from the sickness benefit payable to married women and single women, instead of throwing the whole reduction—two shillings—upon married women alone. I raise this point because I am not at all satisfied that any case has been made out with regard to sickness benefit for differentiation between married and single women. I accept the principle which the Minister of Health laid down, that where experience shows that you are paying more benefit than the valuation provision provided for, the benefit must come down. My Amendment seeks to apply that principle.
There are certain figures in the Actuary's report, to which reference has not been made in the Debate to-day, nor even in the Debates of last week. They show that the sickness benefit paid to unmarried women exceeds the valuation provision by 10 per cent., and that in the case of married women it exceeds the valuation provision by 12 per cent. In substance the excess of the distribution of sickness benefit over the valuation provision is substantially the same in both cases—10 per cent. in one and 12 per cent. in the other. The disablement benefit position is quite different. The excess of disablement benefit paid to the married woman is 90 per cent. over the valuation provision, and it is only 23 per cent. over the valuation provision in the case of the unmarried woman. There is a huge difference—the one 23 per cent. over, and the other 90 per cent. over. There would seem to be ample differentiation between the two classes when you are dealing with disablement benefit, but when you are dealing with sickness benefit no one can suggest that there is any difference worth talking about. The two, as regards sickness benefit, are to all intents and purposes in the same position.
If the fund is short, where is the case for putting the whole of the burden upon the married woman and leaving the unmarried woman entirely out of it? Both classes have exceeded the valuation provision to the same extent and yet the scheme of the Bill is to throw the whole
of the undervaluation or over-distribution upon the married women. There are four unmarried women to every married woman. Therefore, a deduction of 6d. all round would at least give us much as the deduction of the 2s. from the married women alone. You might have something in hand. If the sum of 6d. did not meet the position, probably 8d. or 9d. would. Whatever it was, there must be some figure lower than 2s. which, if deducted from the whole 5,500,000 would give you the sum aimed at instead of seeking to receive such a sum by getting all the money out of the pockets of the unmarried women.
I submit that my Amendment is consistent with the principle laid down by the Minister himself, that it is applying that principle fairly, and that no case has been made out for this unfair distribution. No one would feel hardship. The Minister spoke of "only 2s." If it is fair to speak of "only 2s." where you are taking 17 per cent. off the sickness benefit, you can use several "only 2s" when you are merely deducting,6d. I do not think that anyone would feel the deduction of 6d. It would remove the sense of injustice. I cannot conceive married women who understand the position not feeling a genuine sense of hardship and injustice if their sickness benefit were reduced by 2s., and if in the case of the unmarried women sickness benefit was not reduced at all. I re-read the Debate the other night to find whether any reason had been given for the proposal. The only thing I saw was a suggestion that the Minister liked the idea of the disablement benefit being just one-half the sickness benefit; therefore 6s. as against 12s., and 5s. as against 10s. Surely there is nothing in that. That principle does not apply now. It is 12s. and 7s. 6d. for disablement. I cannot see any justification for it simply because someone likes the idea of the disablement benefit being half that of sickness benefit. I raise the point in order to give the Minister, or the Parliamentary Secretary, an opportunity of explaining—it has not yet been done—the reason for the differentiation as regards sickness benefit, when as to both married and unmarried women the position is precisely the same. The amount spent has been 12 per cent. and 10 per cent. over the valuation provision.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so for the purpose of putting a few points to the Minister of Health in respect of the varying of employment arising out of this matter. Some of us feel that it is a sad state of society in our country that married women should be compelled to go out to work, but such is the position—and it is to their honour—that in a great many instances the state of the home compels them to go out to work, as their earnings are essential I conceive a position arising in respect of this matter, which, unless it is carefully adjusted, will place a very-serious handicap upon married women in regard to employment. I, therefore, ask the Minister to reconsider the provision in regard to the proposal in the Clause. If the proposal is not altered it will handicap married women who have to go to work and lead to some disadvantage of unmarried women, although not in the same proportion as in the case of their married sisters. It is a paradox and a problem, and I ask the Minister of Health if he cannot see his way to reconsider the position?

Mr. LOGAN: I should have thought that when the Ministry came forward with a proposal in regard to the reduction of certain benefits of any particular class from the actuarial point of view, and in view of the equalisation scheme in operation since 1912 under the original contract, there could have been no justification for saying that there should be the same rates of benefit and the same contributions in respect of two classes of insured members. Who else, from the point of view of actuarial sickness calculations, would draw benefit if they were not the married women? The married woman suffers all the difficulties, and naturally she is the person to whom the State should give the greatest assistance. The parent certainly requires all the help which can be given, and the State should certainly come along with assistance. I am anxious to know whether the Minister is prepared, seeing that there is a contra-distinction between married women and single women, to make any reduction in regard to contributions. If not, I consider the whole basis of insurance is being misapplied. It should be applied all round. We ought to have had statistics in regard to every class, and there should have been grada-
tions in every class if the matter was to be dealt with absolutely on the sickness basis. This is a direct attack on the married woman. She is unfortunate and has to bear the brunt of the attack. Is she to pay? It appears that she has to pay, and that preferential treatment is being given to one particular class. I cannot see that anything is going to come in the way of much benefit from the extra shilling, but I shall vote for it. I would, however, like the Minister to say whether there is going to be a reduction in contributions corresponding to the amount which he is taking away in benefit.

Mr. E. BROWN: The hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) has put his case with his usual lucidity, and has made constructive suggestions for dealing with a problem in the scheme of the Bill. It is not merely a question of percentages but of an actual loss of money also. Taking the whole scheme, we have to face a loss of £850,000. That loss is distributed between married and unmarried women as to £430,000 for the unmarried women and £420,000 a year for the married women, but whereas there are only 1,100,000 insured married women there are 4,400,000 insured unmarried women. We had to decide how we could meet that annual loss, which is due to various reasons. The House is well aware that those reasons cannot be stated in a sentence or two. There is always the danger of stressing one point against another. It is clear from the experience of the societies, not merely from their health insurance experience but from their private voluntary experience, that the married women risk is a very different risk from the single woman risk, in regard to sickness itself, and the economic risk is also a different one for the married woman. The hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) put the matter in her own words. She said:
At the same time, I am not going to deny that there is a real difficulty here. The married woman has undeniably a greater temptation to malinger than the married man. I think there is some confusion, because hon. Members have spoken as if sickness was a clearly defined thing. The fact is that sickness is a relative thing. Many married women know, when they go out to work, that their work is badly needed at home, and if they are feeling slightly ill, they may deem it better policy to give up their work and claim on the fund, so that they may remain at home with the children. They are not actually
working at home, but the value of their supervisory services at home, plus their sickness pay, is better worth their while than to continue at work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1932; col. 1976, Vol. 265.]
I do not phrase it that way. I would prefer to phrase it this way, that the whole experience of the approved societies in regard to married women makes it perfectly clear, and this has been stressed much more in the last three or four years, that the most subtle difficulty of the problem that the secretaries and officers of approved societies have to face, and that the doctors have to face, is in actually deciding whether a married woman is or is not sick. That is the main problem with which we are dealing.
8.30 p.m.
I regret that I cannot accept the hon. and learned Member's solution, because it would mean in the terms of our problem a loss of 10 per cent. of the saving. That is a vital matter from the point of view of acceptance of the Amendment. We are being asked by the Amendment to equalise the burden, but I would point out that the unmarried women already under our solution bear a part of the loss in respect of married women, because their disablement benefit is slightly reduced for them, though not as much as that of the married women. The unmarried women—and they include widows, for the single woman and the widow are grouped together, which is a very important point—number 4,400,000 as compared with 1,100,000 married women, who are actually responsible for half the loss. The Amendment asks us in the terms of sickness benefit to deprive the fund of 10 per cent. of the savings that we have already hardly got by this painful process, and in doing that to ask 80 per cent. of the women members of the societies, who already share the burden which is mainly caused by 20 per cent. of the women members, to share more. May I give one further figure? May I remind the Committee that the Actuary, in working out this matter, said

that the average yearly loss per member for single women amounted to 2s. while the average yearly loss for married women amounted to 7s. 6d.? It is for these reasons that I regret I cannot accept the Amendment. We cannot afford it. We have already taken a risk amounting, if our expectations are not fulfilled, to £500,000 a year, and we cannot afford to give away another pound, nor should we do justice to the single women, including the widows, by putting any more burden on their shoulders than is already imposed under the scheme of the Bill.

Mr. GREENWOOD: This is not the only injustice that the Government are doing in this Bill. I am not convinced by the arguments that the Parliamentary Secretary has used. They are the old arguments. They carry us no further forward. The hon. Member has developed what he did not possess when he sat on this side of the House. He has developed what I might call the money mind. The other considerations seem to have fallen into the background, and now he appears as the arch-apostle of economy. The £850,000 loss has become a nightmare to him and the Minister of Health, and no human considerations have been allowed to weigh in these Debates from the day that the Bill was introduced. I did not expect that the Government would accept the Amendment. I should not have been surprised if they had accepted the new Clause, to put an additional imposition on the insured women. A case has been made out for the Amendment, the case that has been made out from this side of the House on more than one occasion. I hope that the hon. and learned Member will stick to his guns, for we shall be delighted to follow him into the Lobby.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 40.

Division No. 252.]
AYES.
[8.34 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Balniel, Lord


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Aske, Sir Robert William
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Atholl, Duchess of
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell


Albery, Irving James
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel


Blindell, James
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Bossom, A. C.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Boulton, W. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Bowyer, Capt Sir George E. W.
Harbord, Arthur
Ramsden, E.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hartland, George A.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rea, Walter Russell


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hornby, Frank
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Renter, John R.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip


Burghley, Lord
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Burnett, John George
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Robinson, John Roland


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Rosbotham, S. T.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ross, Ronald D.


Cassels, James Dale
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Castle Stewart, Earl
Janner, Barnett
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Johnstons, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Jones Lewis (Swansea West)
Salmon, Major Isidore


Clarry, Reginald George
Ker, J. Campbell
Salt, Edward W.


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Bandsman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D,
Kimball, Lawrence
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Conant, R. J. E.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Scone, Lord


Cook, Thomas A.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Cooke, Douglas
Lees-Jones, John
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Cooper, A. Duff
Levy, Thomas
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Copeland, Ida
Lewis, Oswald
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Cowan, D. M.
Liddall, Walter, S.
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lister, Rt. Hon Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Llewellin, Major John J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Smithers, Waldron


Crossley, A. C.
Mabane, William
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
McKie, John Hamilton
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Davison, Sir William Henry
McLean, Major Alan
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Denville, Alfred
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Stevenson, James


Dickie, John P.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Stones, James


Dixey, Arthur C. N.
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Storey, Samuel


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Martin, Thomas B.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Drewe, Cedric
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Strauss, Edward A.


Duggan, Hubert John
Meller, Richard James
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Eady, George H.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Summersby, Charles H.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Sutcliffe, Harold


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Moreing, Adrian C.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Everard, W. Lindsay
Morrison, William Shepherd
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Muirhead, Major A J.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Nail, Sir Joseph
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Ganzoni, Sir John
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
O'Connor, Terence James
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ormiston, Thomas
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon William G. A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Palmer, Francis Noel
Wise, Alfred R.


Graves, Marjorie
Peat, Charles U.
Withers, Sir John James


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Penny, Sir George
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Greene, William P. C.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Petherick, M.
Wragg, Herbert


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada



Guy, J. C. Morrison
Pike, Cecil F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Potter, John
Sir Victor Warrender and Mr.


Hales, Harold K.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Womersley.


Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Edwards, Charles


Batey, Joseph
Daggar, George
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Briant, Frank
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur




Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Thorne, William James


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Leonard, William
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Groves, Thomas E.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Grundy, Thomas W.
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Milner, Major James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Hicks, Ernest George
Parkinson, John Allen
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Hirst, George Henry
Price, Gabriel
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Salter, Dr. Alfred



Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Atkinson and Captain Spencer.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 5, line 17, to leave out the word "five," and to insert instead thereof the word "six."

Question put, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 47.

Division No. 253.]
AYES.
[8.43 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Drewe, Cedric
Llewellin, Major John J.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Duggan, Hubert John
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Mabane, William


Albery, Irving James
Eady, George H.
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McKie, John Hamilton


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Atholl, Duchess of
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
McLean, Major Alan


Atkinson, Cyril
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Balniel, Lord
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Martin, Thomas B.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Meller, Richard James


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Blinded, James
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Bossom, A. C.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw' k)


Boulton, W. W.
Graves, Marjorie
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Moreing, Adrian C.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Greene, William P. C.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Morrison, William Shepherd


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Nail, Sir Joseph


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hales, Harold K.
Normand, Wilfrid Guild


Burghley, Lord
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
O'Connor, Terence James


Burnett, John George
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hanley, Dennis A.
Ormiston, Thomas


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Campbell. Rear-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Harbord, Arthur
Palmer, Francis Noel


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hartland, George A.
Peat, Charles U.


Cassels, James Dale
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Penny, Sir George


Castle Stewart, Earl
Hollgers, Captain F. F. A.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hope. Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Petherick, M.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Hornby, Frank
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Horsbrugh, Florence
Pike, Cecil F.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Potter, John


Clarry, Reginald George
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Conant, R. J. E.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Cook, Thomas A.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Cooke, Douglas
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Ramsden, E.


Cooper, A. Duff
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rea, Walter Russell


Copeland, Ida
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Cowan, D. M.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Cranborne, Viscount
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Remer, John R.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Ker, J. Campbell
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Crossley, A. C.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Kimball, Lawrence
Robinson, John Roland


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Knox, Sir Alfred
Rosbotham, S. T.


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Leckie, J. A.
Ross, Ronald D.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Lees-Jones, John
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Levy, Thomas
Runge, Norah Cecil


Denville, Alfred
Lewis, Oswald
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Dickie, John P.
Liddall, Walter S.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Dixey, Arthur C. N
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Salmon, Major Isidore
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Salt, Edward W.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Scone, Lord
Stevenson, James
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Stones, James
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Storey, Samuel
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Strauss, Edward A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wise, Alfred R.


Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Withers, Sir John James


Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Smithers, Waldron
Summersby, Charles H.
Wragg, Herbert


Somervell, Donald Bradley
Sutcliffe, Harold
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)



Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Thorp, Linton Theodore
Sir Victor Warrender and Mr.




Womersley.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen


Batey, Joseph
Hicks, Ernest George
Price, Gabriel


Briant, Frank
Hirst, George Henry
Rathbone, Eleanor


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jenkins, Sir William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Buchanan, George
John, William
Thorne, William James


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, David
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grithffis, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr.


Groves, Thomas E.
Maxton, James
Duncan Graham.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 5, line 19, to leave out the word "six," and to insert instead thereof the word "seven."

Question put, "That the word 'six' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 46.

Division No. 254.]
AYES.
[8.54 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Castle Stewart, Earl
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Everard, W. Lindsay


Albery, Irving James
Chalmers, John Rutherford
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Clarry, Reginald George
Ganzoni, Sir John


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Clayton, Dr. George C.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton


Atholl, Duchess of
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Atkinson, Cyril
Conant, R. J. E.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cook, Thomas A.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Cooke, Douglas
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Balniel, Lord
Cooper, A. Duff
Graves, Marjorie


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Copeland, Ida
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Cowan, D. M.
Greene, William P. C.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Cranborne, Viscount
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)


Beaumont. Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Blindell, James
Crooke, J. Smedley
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.


Bossom, A. C.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Bouiton, W. W.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George F. W.
Crossley, A. C.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hales, Harold K.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Denville, Alfred
Hanley, Dennis A.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Dickie, John P.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Dixey, Arthur C. N.
Harbord, Arthur


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hartland, George A.


Burghley, Lord
Drewe, Cedric
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Duggan, Hubert John
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Burnett, John George
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Eady, George H.
Hornby, Frank


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Horsbrugh, Florence


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Howard, Tom Forrest


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Cassels, James Dale
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Morrison, William Shepherd
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
O'Connor, Terence James
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Ormiston, Thomas
Smithers, Waldron


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Palmer, Francis Noel
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Peat, Charles U.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Penny, Sir George
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Ker, J. Campbell
Petherick, M.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Kimball, Lawrence
Pike, Cecil F.
Stevenson, James


Knox, Sir Alfred
Potter, John
Stones, James


Leckie, J. A.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Storey, Samuel


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Lees-Jones, John
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Strauss, Edward A.


Levy, Thomas
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Lewis, Oswald
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Liddall, Walter S.
Ramsden, E.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Rea, Walter Russell
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Summersby, Charles H.


Llewellin, Major John J.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Mabane, William
Remer, John R.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


McCorquodale, M. S.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


McKie, John Hamilton
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Turton, Robert Hugh


McLean, Major Alan
Robinson, John Roland
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Rosbotham, S. T.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Ross, Ronald D.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Wise, Alfred R.


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Runge, Norah Cecil
Withers, Sir John James


Martin, Thomas B.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Womersley, Walter James


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Meller, Richard James
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Salmon, Major Isidore
Wragg, Herbert


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Salt, Edward W.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart



Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Moreing, Adrian C.
Scone, Lord
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert


Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Ward and Major George Davies.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen


Briant, Frank
Hicks, Ernest George
Price, Gabriel


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hirst, George Henry
Rathbone, Eleanor


Buchanan, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thorne, William James


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, David
Wallhead, Richard C.


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Leonard, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Edwards, Charles
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McGovern, John



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, in page 5, line 19, at the end, to insert the words:
 Provided that married women whose husbands are incapacitated from work or are unemployed and not in receipt of benefit shall be entitled to benefit as if they were not married.
I would appeal to the Minister and to the Members of the House to see the reasonableness of this Amendment. It seeks to provide that a woman with a
husband who is incapacitated from work or who is out of work and receiving no benefit shall be regarded as a single woman for the purposes of this Clause. The Minister, I have no doubt, will say that a man who is incapacitated receives possibly sickness benefit or disablement benefit, but the great point that is made in connection with married women is this, that married women have some inducement not to compete for a job in the same degree as a single woman. That
is the case, but here, in the case of a man who is incapacitated, the whole burden of keeping him is thrown on his wife. In the case of unemployment insurance, a woman in that category can claim unemployment benefit, and receive if, if she can prove that she maintains her husband when he is incapacitated. Again, in the case of Income Tax, a woman who has a taxable income and can prove that her husband is incapacitated is entitled to a rebate of Income Tax on the ground that her husband is dependent on her. Single women are better off, and a widow may have the widows' pension, and to that extent she is in a better position than the woman who has to maintain a man who may be receiving at the best only disablement benefit.
All the arguments which are generally adduced about married women having an incentive to get something extra cannot be applied in this case where the married woman is obviously in a position of the breadwinner. We have had no concessions in this Bill, and I appeal to the Minister to meet us on this point. It may be argued that the test whether a man is in receipt of public funds may mean something or nothing, but if the Minister cannot grant us that test, we ask him to grant us the test of capacity for work. When we were debating capacity for work in regard to Income Tax, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that it was a definite test that could be easily made. If it is a test that can easily be made for Income Tax purposes, it is surely easy to say that a woman who has this added burden, should not have reduced scales of sickness benefit. Such a woman who is supporting a man may be saving the State funds locally and nationally, particularly locally, because she prevents him from being a burden on the local rates. The Income Tax Acts and the Unemployment Insurance Act deal with this type of woman as being deserving of help. We have purposely couched this Amendment moderately. We have been twitted for making extravagant speeches, but in this case we have drawn up the Amendment in a mild form purposely in the hope that it will appeal to the Minister and to the House. When we pressed for a similar Amendment when the Anomalies Act was under discussion, we received strong support from all quarters of the House, and we hope
that the House will respond in the same way to this Amendment

Mr. MAXTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
To previous requests, the Minister has replied that he cannot make concessions, that he made all the concessions in the Bill as he produced it, and that he can do no more consistently with maintaining the solvency of the fund. There are not many cases of this kind, but those that there are deserve the fullest sympathy. The fewness of the cases that will arise may lead the Minister to say that it is not worth legislating for so few people, and that their needs will be met in other ways. We are thinking of the cases where the needs are not met in other ways, where the woman is going out to work, and, in addition to shouldering the responsibility of running her household, has the burden and responsibility of an invalid husband. The position of that woman is worse than the position of the widow or the single woman. She has not merely lost her breadwinner, but has an additional family responsibility to bear.
This concession cannot cost in bulk a sufficient amount to endanger the solvency of the fund. We have not treated the Minister badly; we have been very sympathetic. We know the struggle he had on the Town Planning Bill with Members of his own party and no doubt he thinks that it is not fair that one Minister should be badgered to death between the hosts behind him and the hordes in front of him—although "hordes" is the wrong term to apply here. We have been sympathetic towards him. We have not been carrying our antagonism to the Bill, which is very real, to undue lengths. I have always seen in previous Parliaments that the Minister generally handed out some reward to the Opposition for pertinacity that was not accompanied by offensiveness. We are asking this very small thing not for ourselves, but for a small section of the community who are suffering great hardship.

Mr. E. BROWN: I always like to hear the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), for whether he puts his case in extravagant or mild terms, he is always an expert Parliamentarian. He puts his case with great effect and plausibility, but rather disarms the Minister because
he is generally aware of the pitfalls of his own Amendment, as indeed he is in this case. Obviously, he thought that the Minister would reply that the terms had not been denned. That is true. What do public funds mean? They may mean half a dozen things, but I do not want to stress that.

Mr. BUCHANAN: We took the words from another Act of Parliament which is administered by another Department, and we thought that if it can be administered by one Department, it can be administered by two such geniuses as preside over the Ministry of Health.

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member has given another example of his Parliamentary ability and of his plausibility. He has been long enough in the House to know that a thing that is denned in an Act administered by one Minister may be entirely different from a thing denned in another Act administered by another Minister for another purpose. I will not raise difficulties in regard to technicalities, however, but some curious reactions may be discovered in the Amendment. It would mean, for example, that the wives of all unemployed agricultural labourers would get the benefits of single women.
Let me come down to the substance of the Amendment. Of course, if concessions could have been made on merits inside the fund they would have been made. The Minister made it perfectly plain at the beginning that all the facts that we could foresee had been foreseen when the Bill was drawn, and it is for that reason, and not from any hard-heartedness or lack of understanding, or because we might have sat later than 3.15 in the morning, that we have not conceded this point; it was because all the facts were opposed to it and no concessions were possible. Let me deal with

two other reasons, taking the first from the point of view of the man himself. The hon. Member for Gorbals said a man who is uninsured and incapacitated probably is a bit better off than the man who is insured. If the man is insured and he is sick or incapacitated he has either got sickness benefit, disablement benefit or workmen's compensation. That is so, and that is the answer.

With regard to the uninsured man, the case is rather different. The hon. Member said it was easy to determine incapacity for work for the purposes of Income Tax, but he knows very well that the test is an entirely different one from that in the case of incapacity for work under unemployment insurance. There are entirely different tests, and entirely different arrangements with regard to the test. The final objection on merits to this Amendment is this: health insurance is based upon a carefully balanced series of factors, and what the hon. Member and his friends are asking us to do is to enter upon a series of unknown factors, by asking health insurance societies to determine a category of considerations which are not within the structure of the Act. It is not the duty of health insurance societies to decide when a man is or is not employed in these terms, and what they are asking societies to do is a very dangerous thing, that is, to make the societies liable for extra benefits by reason of a state of affairs which has no connection at all with the very finely balanced considerations which make health insurance such a complicated structure. I am sure the Minister shares my regret that we cannot accede to the plea which has been made to us, but on merits I think we ought not to cast such a burden upon the approved societies.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes. 44; Noes, 249.

Division No. 255.]
AYES.
[9.18 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Leonard, William


Attlee, Clement Richard
Groves, Thomas E.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Batey, Joseph.
Grundy, Thomas W.
McEntee, Valentine L.


Briant, Frank
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
McGovern, John


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Cape, Thomas
Hicks, Ernest George
Maxton, James


Cove, William G.
Hirst, George Henry
Milner, Major James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Parkinson, John Allen


Daggar, George
John, William
Price, Gabriel


Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Edwards, Charles
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, William James


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lawson, John James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Williams, David (Swansea, East)
William, Thomas (York., Don Valley)
Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Kirkwood.


Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ganzoni, Sir John
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Morrison, William Shepherd


Albery, Irving James
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Normand, Wilfrid Guild


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Graves, Marjorie
O'Connor, Terence James


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Greene, William P. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Atholl, Duchess of
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Atkinson, Cyril
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Peat, Charles U.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Penny, Sir George


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Perkins, Walter B. D.


Balniel, Lord
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Petherick, M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hales, Harold K.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Pike, Cecil F.


Bossom, A. C.
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Potter, John


Boulton, W. W.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Harbord, Arthur
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Harris, Sir Percy
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hartland, George A.
Bamsbotham, Herwald


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harvey. Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ramsden, E.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rea, Walter Russell


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Burghley, Lord
Hornby, Frank
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Burnett, John George
Howard, Tom Forrest
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Rhys, Hon Charles Arthur U.


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Castle Stewart, Earl
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Robinson, John Roland


Cautley Sir Henry S.
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Rosbotham, S. T.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ross, Ronald D.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Janner, Barnett
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Clarry, Reginald George
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Salmon, Major Isidore


Colville, John
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Salt, Edward W.


Conant, R. J. E.
Ker, J. Campbell
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cook, Thomas A.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Cooke, Douglas
Kimball, Lawrence
Savery, Samuel Servington


Cooper, A. Duff
Knight, Holford
Scone, Lord


Copeland, Ida
Leckie, J. A.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Cowan, D. M.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lees-Jones, John
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Levy, Thomas
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lewis, Oswald
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Liddall, Walter S.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Crossley, A. C.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Llewellin, Major John J.
Smithers, Waldron


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Lockwood. John C. (Hackney, C.)
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Mabane, William
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Danville, Alfred
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. C. (Partick)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Dickie, John P.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Dixey. Arthur C. N.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
McKie, John Hamilton
Stevenson, James


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
McLean, Major Alan
Stones, James


Drewe, Cedric
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Storey, Samuel


Duggan, Hubert John
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Strauss, Edward A.


Eady, George H.
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Martin, Thomas B.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Meller, Richard James
Sutcliffe, Harold


Erskine, Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Touche, Gordon Cosmo




Turton, Robert Hugh
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Wragg, Herbert


Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Wise, Alfred R.



Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Womersley, Walter James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wells, Sydney Richard
Worthington, Dr. John V.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward




and Mr. Blindell.

Miss PICKFORD: I beg to move, in page 5, line 19, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that the foreging rates of sickness and disablement benefit shall be subject to review by the Minister at a date not later than the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and, thirty-five, or the completion of the fourth valuation whichever be the earlier.
The purpose of the Amendment which stands in my name and that of other hon. Members, is that if, when the next Valuation takes place, owing to more careful administration, to the reduction in benefit which will have been paid in the intervening years, and also, we most sincerely hope, owing to improved trade, there should be any surplus accruing to the societies of which women are the members, the cash benefits which are reduced by the Clause should be a first charge on such surplus, and that they should be restored either in whole or in part. It may be argued that it is within the power of the approved societies to restore those benefits if they have surpluses and if they so desire, and that this Amendment would, to some extent, encroach on the powers and the freedom of the approved societies. I would point out, however, that every National Health Insurance Bill has laid down the principle that there shall be minimum benefits which are a first charge on the funds of the societies, and it is only after these minimum cash benefits have been paid that approved societies may distribute such disposable surpluses as they have in the manner they wish. Furthermore, these cash benefits have been from time to time altered and increased, from the time of the first National Insurance Act passed in 1911, and it has always been for Parliament and not for the approved societies to determine what these alterations should be. It was further laid down in Section 11 of the 1924 Act that any extended benefits which it might be possible for societies to pay should be determined by Parliament and not by the approved societies. Therefore, this Amendment does not interfere with the liberties of approved societies any more than any previous National Health Insurance Act has done.
9.30 p.m.
To take the other point, that approved societies may, if they wish, distribute any surpluses they may have, either in cash benefits or an some other way. It is perfectly clear from what the Parliamentary Secretary said on the Committee stage that the freedom that approved societies have is to use these surpluses either for additional cash benefits or for any other benefits, such as ophthalmic, dental, or whatever benefits it may be. I want the House to consider the position of those societies which have both men and women members, and where the funds of the men and women are joint, and not separate. If the funds are separate, it is for the women to determine what shall be done with the women's surplus. In those cases where the funds are joint, it is for all the members to determine how these surpluses shall be used. There are a very large number of societies in which the funds are still joint and not separate, and it is perhaps worth observing that in the majority of those societies the men members out-number the women. If it is for the members to determine how the surpluses shall be used, though the women may wish them to be used for the restoration of the cash benefits, the men might very likely prefer that they should be used for such additional benefits as ophthalmic, dental and other benefits, and one could not prevent them. We think the restoration of those benefits should be a first charge on any surpluses. It might very well be that the size of the surplus was very largely due to the fact that these reduced benefits have been paid over a term of some years.
I want, also, to draw the attention of the House to a matter which has been frequently referred to in the course of the Debate—the great disparity in the situation of the most prosperous and the least prosperous societies. It might very well be that though the funds of the societies as a whole might at the end of the next valuation period show a very good and general increase, you might yet have a position where the most prosperous societies which have the best lives and the best contributions would be able to restore those cash benefits and
to pay additional outside benefits over and above them, and, at the other end of the scale, you might very well have societies which contain industrial workers from the depressed areas, where trade had not sufficiently improved for the funds to have improved as compared with other societies, and these might well be in deficiency The point we wish to make is that, within the limits of National Health Insurance it is possible that there should be some pooling of resource's. You have to-day a position in which, taking the mass of societies as a whole, their sickness claims are not up to the general expectations and you have some societies, notably the miners' societies, where the sickness claims are just as much in excess of the expectations as are the women's claims, and where their contributions have been lowered owing to unemployment. Yet it is possible to-day to continue to pay the statutory benefit to members of those societies, as long as they are well administered, because they are allowed to draw on the central reserve fund.
The object of this Amendment is that should there be a return to prosperity and disposable surpluses, those surpluses should not be solely disposed of as each society might wish but that, in the general improvement which we hope will come, all the women's societies should have the same share. It is only possible to arrive at that by some Amendment such as we here propose. This Amendment does not depart from any principle which is not already implicit in the National Health Insurance Acts. Clause 3 asks for very serious sacrifices from a large number of insured women—from all insured women—but from the insured married women in greater proportion than from the insured single women. If the House will adopt this Amendment it will show that it is not unmindful of those women and of the sacrifices that they have had to make, and it will say that where and if there shall be surpluses accruing to the women's funds in general, and in those societies of which women are members, the restoration of the cash benefits shall be the first claim upon any such surpluses.

Miss WARD: I rise to support, very briefly, the Amendment which has been proposed by the hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Miss Pickford). I am par-
ticularly anxious that the women in distressed areas shall retain, when and if the National Health Insurance Fund becomes solvent, the possibility of a higher statutory benefit than at present contemplated under the Bill. This also appears to be the most desirable method of redistributing any surplus which may accrue as a result of the passing of this Bill. I need not emphasise the points which have been so ably put forward by my hon. Friend, but I would like to remind the House that a common sacrifice by women in all societies, good, bad or indifferent, in order to preserve the stability of the fund, calls for an equal reward when available.
In order to amplify my statement, I would refer to the Actuary's report where, for example, we find that the Prudential Assurance Company, which is a women's society, had a disposable surplus at the last quinquennial valuation of £195,700, and, in contradistinction to this, that the women's section of the Amalgamated Weavers Association shows a deficit of £63,332. It is not unreasonable to assume that, as a result of the passing of this Bill, the funds of the Prudential Assurance Society will be very heavily strengthened, and if that society so decides it may put back the cuts which are made in the statutory benefits in this Bill. I think it is unlikely that at the end of the next valuation the fund of the weavers' society will be in surplus. It is more likely to remain in deficiency still with a lower statutory benefit, and requiring to draw from the central fund in order to meet its obligations. I emphasise very particularly also that the women in the weavers' society come from that part of the country, as do so many other members of societies which are in deficiency, from depressed areas where unemployment is blackest, and where it is less possible to make the sacrifices necessary to preserve the stability of the fund.
The Minister has resisted consistently, during the course of the Debate, any consideration of introducing legislation based on the findings of the Royal Commission and the May Committee, with regard to the disparity of the benefits which are given by individual societies. In rejecting this Amendment, I venture to say the House would tend to increase that disparity, or at any rate be running the risk of increasing the disparity in available
benefits, which would be very regrettable. I most earnestly beg the Minister not entirely to close the door to the possibility that there may be, in the next few years, some improvement in the financial position of the insurance fund. We are not asking in any way that we should retract from the steps which have been taken to place the fund in a solvent position, and we are not attempting to interfere with what may be termed the vested interests of the societies. We are merely suggesting that if, at the period mentioned, or at the end of the next quinquennial valuation, the position over the whole field of women's insurance is better, we shall reserve to the House of Commons the right to say whether it would not be better to restore the statutory benefits, rather than to allow the societies to distribute their surplus funds, with the possibility of creating unfairness among those who have made a common sacrifice.

Sir H. YOUNG: This Amendment has been argued by the two hon. Members with close knowledge of this intricate subject, and with a close relevancy, which is refreshing in our Debates upon this topic. I have followed from step to step the very able sequence of the argument with the greatest interest and attention. If I am unable to accept the Amendment the reasons are two. The first is that, excellent as was the argument that was put forward to support some other Amendment which it might have been possible to frame with the object in question, it was certainly not in support of this Amendment. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said that her object was to make a restoration to the original level of the cash benefits to women a first charge upon any future improvement. That is very clear, but the Amendment certainly would not do that. The Amendment says:
Provided that the foregoing rates of sickness and disablement benefit shall be subject to review by the Minister at a date not later than the thirty-first day of December"—
and so on. The Minister might review them and do nothing. He might review them and restore them, and he might review them and alter them in any way that he pleased. The Amendment certainly would not secure the object of the hon. Ladies.
The second reason why this Amendment could not be accepted is that it would have the effect of bestowing a most astonishing power upon the Minister. What is meant by a review? It cannot only be meant that he should have a good look at the thing, say, "Well, that's that," and go and do something else. If the Amendment is intended to have any effect, it must, I imagine, be intended to have the effect of giving the Minister the power to readjust the rates according to his own sweet will. There have been occasions which are not far past, on which I have had to maintain the power of the Minister to take certain action, but I should certainly hesitate to claim for the Minister the power thus to review and to change a deliberate legislative decision of the House of Commons. That seems to me to be, in the first place, a fatal objection to the Amendment.
Now let me proceed—passing by the actual phraseology of the Amendment, which, as I have said, is not, I think, really well directed to the purpose for which it is intended—to the contention so clearly expressed and so well maintained in argument by the two hon. Members. Their intention, as I understand it, is this: They would say, "Here, in bad times, you find it necessary to cut down benefits. Times may get better; it may be possible to increase benefits again; and in that case we desire to secure that the benefits shall be restored." That, I take it, is the central purpose of the Amendment.
No special legislation is necessary for that purpose. The assets of every society are revalued at intervals of five years. We cannot allow a period of less than five years, for five years is no more than adequate to ascertain the actual condition of a society. At the end of the valuation period, a society will find itself either with a surplus or without a surplus. If it finds itself without a surplus, then the question does not arise; there is no question of increasing benefits. If the society finds itself with a surplus, then it is perfectly open to the society to make use of that surplus by way of additional benefit in the following manner. It can devote part of its surplus as an additional benefit to increasing the cash benefits of its members, and, if it pleases it can make use of the surplus in order to increase the cash benefits of its members in such a manner as to restore the re-
duction which is now being made. It will be seen, therefore, that the whole purpose desired by the hon. Members can be achieved under the existing law in those cases in which it is possible of achievement.
As I followed the argument of the hon. Members, they would like to go a step further, and say to the societies, "You not only may use your surplus, if you have one, in this manner, but you shall thus use it." I, for one, cannot see, however, why this House, legislating some years before the occasion arises, should constrain and bind the liberty of the women's societies to do what they please with their own surpluses. There need be no suspicion that the will of the members of the societies would not prevail. The method of disposal of surpluses is one which, if I understand aright the procedure of approved societies, has to be considered in a meeting of the members of the societies. At that meeting, if they choose, the members can decide that an available surplus shall be made use of to increase the cash benefits. If they desire not to use the surplus in that manner, but in some other manner, I cannot, as I have said, see why we, acting some years before the time, should seek to bind their hands in advance.
Then the hon. Members put the more difficult case of the joint societies, in which there are both men and women members. As I understand their argument, they fear that in those cases the interests of the men would in all cases prevail, and that the desire of the women for an increase in their cash benefits might be sacrificed to the desire of the men members to allocate the surplus in some other manner. It is to be noticed, however, that the men members of such a society certainly could not, even if they desired to do so, get permission to allocate a surplus in any manner which would discriminate unfairly against the women members of the society. That would be quite impossible; the control is too good and close for that. Accepting, as we must, the basis of the organisation of our insurance system through approved societies, it would be quite improper for this House to seek to bind and constrain the liberty of the mixed society as regards the disposal of its surpluses. There again, if women are joined with men as members of a joint society, they must enter it on an equal status as regards determining
the destination of surpluses, and must leave that question to the ordinary democratic procedure of the society; but I may point out in passing that, even if we were to seek now, at this point of time—very prematurely, as I think—to decide that, in the case of joint societies, there must be an allocation of surplus in the first place to increase women's benefits, we could not secure the position for the women members, because, unless we bound and constrained the allocation of the whole surplus, we could not prevent those responsible for the disposal of the surplus from, as it were, making that advantage to the women good by some equal or equivalent disadvantage in the allocation of some other part of the surplus. If we accept the basis of organisation through approved societies, it follows that we must accept the basis of free disposal of surpluses according to the will of the society, and that must apply to the joint society as much as it applies to the women's societies. Those are two objections to the acceptance of any such Amendment as this.
The general objection to the Amendment appears to me to be that it seeks too much to anticipate the future. It is impossible for us to say at the present time what is going to be the position at the end of the next valuation period. The hon. Members who have so cogently supported this Amendment are anxious—and I fully understand the reasons for their anxiety—that, if a restoration of the cash benefits of the women at the end of the period is possible, it should take place. I have pointed out that it will be for the women themselves to decide whether that is to be so or not. Let me go one step further by way of reassurance to the hon. Members. The period is. so far ahead that it would be idle and absurd for any Minister standing at this Box now to give undertakings as to what is to happen then. But I will give this as my opinion, and one which I think will commend itself to the House, that, if in the course of the present valuation period there comes a marked improvement in our national position, if in consequence of that there comes a decided improvement in the finances of the societies, and if in consequence of that there is a prospect of such a restoration of surpluses an to raise the question, undoubtedly it appears to me that anyone who is responsible for the finances of
national health insurance at that time will have to give a general review to the matter and will have to consider whether or not the time has come at which it is possible to undo these restrictions. It seems to me that it is in the nature of the case and that it is in accordance with the principles of commonsense that, just as now the present occupant of the post has had to consider restrictions, so, if the future position admits, the occupant of the post when that time comes will have to give reconsideration to the matter and consider whether it is not possible once more to raise the basic rate. That, I believe, is the only form in which the assurance which the hon. Member seeks can reasonably be given. In view of that consideration and in view of what has been said as regards the full liberty of the societies to raise their cash benefits at the end of the valuation period if they have a surplus to distribute, it would not at present be reasonable to ask the House to accept the Amendment in its present form.

10.0 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: The right hon. Gentleman has given very good reasons why this Amendment cannot be accepted in its present form, but it appears to me that in almost his last sentence he indicated a very good reason why he should, if possible, think over the matter again before the Bill leaves another place and see whether he cannot take powers to require the restoration of the basic rate when the financial situation justifies it. He said it would be the duty of himself or his successor to do that if the circumstances justified it. We all know that a Minister may think the time is ripe to make a certain legislative change, but the state of the Parliamentary programme may not enable him to do it. We know the competition between the Departments when the programme of the Session is being discussed as to whose reforms are the most urgent. The whole subject of health insurance as covered by the Bill has been debated to-day at considerable length. Most of the general principles that we should like to see guiding the distribution of health insurance benefits hold good irrespective of the particular circumstances. Since the initiative will have to rest with the Minister in the long-run, since he alone will have the facts and figures before him which will enable
him to propose the restoration of the basic rate, why is it not possible for him here and now to take powers to himself to do that when the valuation period is reached if the financial situation justifies it? I could not, although I listened most attentively, see that he really brought forward any reason which would prevent him doing by regulation in this case what he himself confesses it would be his duty to do when the time arrives.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. GREENWOOD: I should like to clear up a misunderstanding that arose on an earlier occasion. I gathered from statements made earlier that this Measure had received the almost unanimous approval of the Consultative Council of the Ministry of Health. It is difficult for any discussion to take place on this, but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the case that he had this approval, whether it is the case that he promised consideration of prolongation, which has not taken place, and whether it is also not the case that the trade union approved societies never on any occasion agreed to attack married women's benefits, because the House was obviously influenced by the statement that was made at an earlier point in our discussion.
Earlier to-day the Minister declined to accept an Amendment because he said it was throwing out the baby with the bath water. I want to ask the House what the Bill actually does. The right hon. Gentleman is not merely throwing out the baby with the bath water; he is throwing out the mother, the maiden aunt, the medicine bottle and the unemployed father as well. He is throwing out large categories of people, and his crime is enormous compared with the crime of the hon. Lady, who was merely throwing but a very tiny baby. The right hon. Gentleman must have an enormous amount of bath water to be able to throw these people out as he is doing. It is clear, as has been emphasised time and time again, that this Bill is part and parcel of the Government's policy of restriction. They began with the reduction of unemploy-
ment insurance benefit, driving large numbers of unemployed people to the Poor Law. This is a further stage in this developing policy of almost indiscriminate restriction of the social services. The Bill as it leaves this House will whet the appetite of those enthusiasts for national economy who have set up sub-committees and who are going to sit during the Recess, if need be, in order to impose their will upon the Government in the autumn.
The truth is that the policy expressed in this Bill is one of sacrifice of human to material interests, and especially the human interests of people who are more hardly circumstanced than the rest of the people. Very reasonable Amendments have been moved and persuasive speeches have been made by many Members, but the flinty-hearted Minister has given us not a single concession. I referred earlier to the money mind of the Parliamentary Secretary. I cannot claim to have the same personal knowledge of the political life of the present Minister but I have watched the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) sitting there among the Liberal party with his heart on fire to prevent any kind of indignity to the poor. I am quite sure that the Minister himself once had a heart which is softer than it is to-day, but the truth is that this £850,000 about which we have been hearing so much has become an obsession with the Minister and Parliamentary Secretary, and presumably with the whole of the Government Front Bench. It is an ever-present nightmare, and they have loft out of consideration what lies behind the squeezing of this money out of special categories of insured persons.
This Bill was presented to the House as though it were conferring new benefits on the insured population of this country. We were led to believe, by documents and by speeches from the other side of the House, that there was something in this Bill which would bring comfort to certain classes of insured persons. The truth is that, as regards unemployed persons and women, it is taking away rights and benefits which they have enjoyed up to this moment, without regard to the big human considerations which lie behind. Appeals have been made to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. I am sorry to say that they have no bowels of compassion. There have been appeals
from these benches and from their own benches, but no single concession has been made on any point at all, and the only argument they adduced was, "This Bill has been framed in order to achieve certain financial results." Their ears have been closed to all other arguments, and every time the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have come back to this saving of money.
In the case of the unemployed, the truth is that in the first part of the Bill we have imposed upon the backs of that unfortunate section of the community new burdens. We are taking away from them something which hitherto they have enjoyed, because of the sanctity of this insurance principle. The right hon. Gentleman, at an earlier stage of the discussion on this Bill, stood at the Table and said that I was prepared to put health insurance on the slippery slope down which unemployment insurance had fallen. The truth is that unemployment insurance never has been insurance; and the other point of substance is that you are penalising people under the health insurance scheme because of economic circumstances with which the scheme was never designed to deal. If, in a time of grave economic difficulties, you have to take special steps to deal with a problem which originates entirely outside all health insurance matters, it cannot be said that you are following that slippery slope down to the bankruptcy of the fund. That is the truth—that the unemployed are going to find, within a week or two now, an ever-nearing prospect of jeopardising their own old age pensions, widows' pensions and orphans' allowances. It is true that if they return to work they can come back on rather easier terms. That is not an improvement on the present position; it is an indication of one of the petty meannesses of the scheme that those people who have undergone a long sacrifice and a long period of unemployment are going to be penalised, and instead of being welcomed back into the scheme, will have to come in on terms.
As regards the married women, we have heard talk to-day about the wickedness of segregating one section from another. That is precisely what Clause 3 of the Bill does. It takes married women, and of course single women as well, and deals with women in a way different from that in which it deals with any other group or category of insured persons. There is
no body of insured persons who, because of heavy rates of sickness or disablement, are pushed into a special class and told that their benefits are by Statute going to be less than the general rate. It may be that the reasons are different, but if they are, surely this financial solution is no solution whatever. The circumstances of married women, we have been told to-day, are different from those of other people. There are very large numbers of married women in this country who live in areas, and who have worked in districts where the employment of married women is a normal thing. During times of trade depression there are married women who are forced by economic circumstances into the labour market to try to find work, in order to eke out the income of a family in which perhaps the breadwinner has been out of work a long time, and these women are now having their benefits reduced.
Where we are dealing with reduction of benefits, I wonder, if we had been able in the title of the Bill to insert the words "rates of interest," whether we should have had the same flinty, cold, hostile treatment of any suggested alteration. We should have been told that if National Debt interest receivers were to have their rates cut, it would be treating one class of people unfairly as against another. Precisely the same thing has taken place in this Bill. We should have been told of the enormous hardships which would have been inflicted on people who were holders of National Debt, but they are nothing to the hardships which are going to be inflicted upon 80,000 unemployed workers ultimately under this Bill, and almost immediately on married and single women. This Bill is a Bill against which we protested on Second Reading; this Bill is a Bill upon which we have challenged every Division that could be challenged; and this Bill is a Bill against which we must make our final protest on Third Reading in the Division Lobby.

Mr. BATEY: I have listened to the major portion of the Debate to-day, and before we go into the Division Lobby I want to give my reasons for being opposed to the Bill. I regard it as an extremely bad Bill. I regard it as an absurd Bill. I consider that this Bill is solely a Bill to deal with the deficit
in the National Health Insurance societies. I am prepared to admit that in some of the distressed areas, some of the National Health Insurance societies need help, but this Bill does not put societies in distressed areas on a proper footing. It deals with all societies alike. It makes what is, in my opinion, the great mistake of treating all societies alike, when we are bound to admit that there is as much difference between societies as there is between chalk and cheese.
I am opposed to the Bill because it makes crystal clear the fact that the Government have no faith in a revival of trade. If they had any faith in a revival of trade or in their policy for bettering the conditions of trade, we should not have had the Government bringing in this Bill. The Minister has said that there is a deficit in the National Health Insurance Fund of £2,850,000, and that £2,000,000 of the deficit is due to loss of contributions owing to unemployment, and £850,000 to the position of married women. Having satisfied himself of the deficit and that it is due to the unemployed and the married women, he applies the knife and proposes to cut the benefits of the unemployed and of the women. I am whole-heartedly in support of the Members on this side of the House in opposing the reduction of the married women's sick benefit by 2s. a week, the reduction of the disablement benefit by 2s. 6d. a week, and the reduction of the unmarried women's disablement benefit by 1s. 6d. a week.
During the Debates a question cropped up as to whether the deficit in regard to married women's sickness benefit was due to loose certification by doctors. I wish to make my position clear. I do not believe that the deficit is due to loose certification by doctors. I have always been glad to think that the doctors show sympathy with the poorest of our people, and in my experience no doctor is prepared to give a certificate to a man or woman unless he believes that he or she is suffering from some illness. I do not think that it is any remedy for the present condition of things to say that we want good lives in the insurance fund. It would not be an insurance fund unless it took in the good and the bad, and the whole of the working men and women, and we cannot expect to have
nothing but good lives. We ought not to lay too much stress upon taking only good lives into the insurance fund.
If malingering, which has been hinted at if not openly stated, is the cause of the excessive sickness of married women, the cutting of the benefit by 2s. per week will not remedy the grievance. The Ministry should have introduced some other remedy rather than that of merely cutting the benefit. I wish to deal principally with the proposals which affect the unemployed, because the Minister says that £2,000,000 of the deficit is due to loss of contributions owing to unemployment, and he proposes to cut away from the unemployed sickness, medical and maternity benefit, and pension rights. The Minister forgets that though he may take away both the sickness and the medical benefits, the unemployed will still need these services if they cannot get unemployment benefit. If the unemployed man is to be deprived of his sickness benefit it will not remedy the position, because if he cannot get his sickness benefit from the National Health Insurance Society, or his medical benefit from the society, he will be forced to the Poor Law.
Whether the Government realise what they are doing or not they are forcing the unemployed men more and more on to the Poor Law. The Minister said tonight that we on this side want to abandon the solvency of the scheme and to put the burden on to the Exchequer. We reply that the Government want to maintain the solvency of the scheme and to throw the burden on the Poor Law. If it becomes a question whether the burden should be thrown upon the Poor Law or the Exchequer, there is no doubt where we stand. I am in favour of the burden being thrown upon the Exchequer rather than upon the Poor Law. The Minister must not forget this fact, which he was told in Committee, that if the Treasury paid back what they took from the National Health Insurance societies under the Economy Act, 1926, the £2,750,000 a year there would be practically no deficit in the National Health Insurance societies. We say that if the burden is to rest either on the Poor Law or on the Exchequer there can be no question that in justice, the Exchequer ought to bear the burden.
The Bill not only takes from the unemployed man sickness and medical benefit, but where his wife is not working the maternity benefit is also taken away. A former Conservative Minister of Health, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think it was in 1928, dealt with the question of maternity benefit. He impressed the House more with that speech than with probably any other speech he has made. If the present Minister of Health would refer to that speech of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer he would have learned some of the reasons why maternity benefit ought to have been maintained and not taken away. One of my strongest reasons for opposing the Bill is that it robs the unemployed man of his pension rights. It is not sufficient to say that that will not apply until 1935. Step by step, as sure as we are here tonight, the intention of the Government is to rob the unemployed man of his pension rights in 1935. The pension rights of the working classes are most important and should be safeguarded.
I have always been at a loss to understand why pension rights should be attached to national health insurance; why widows' pensions, workmen's pensions and old age pensions, should be attached to a National Health Insurance scheme. Some of us were strongly opposed to the contributory Clauses of the 1925 Act. We thought that the working classes should not be called upon to contribute to widows' pensions or to orphans' pensions, or to old age pensions, but the House decided that it should be contributory. Under that Act it is possible for a man to contribute to the fund from the age of 16 until he is 56 and then for him to be robbed of his pension rights. He may have paid to the fund for 40 years and then, because he is thrown out of employment, he may lose all his pension rights, and if he dies his widow may not be entitled to the widow's pension or his orphans to the orphans' pension. That is grossly unfair. A widow's pension can be drawn to-day when the husband has never contributed a penny to the fund, and, therefore, we shall have on one hand a widow drawing this pension whose husband has never contributed to the fund, and, on the other, a widow who is debarred from receiving the pension but whose husband may have contributed for over 40 years to the fund.
10.30 p.m.
The same thing applies in regard to the man's old age pension. He may pay for over 40 years and then, through unemployment, he may be robbed of his pension at the age of 65. On the other hand, a man may be drawing an old age pension at the age of 65 and yet continue at work. Therefore, you may also get a man drawing an old age pension at 65 and continuing his ordinary employment and a man who has paid for 40 years into the fund being robbed of his pension. The Government should have dealt with this question in an altogether different way. They should have said that if a man has paid into this fund for a number of years he is entitled to his old age pension at 65, and that if he dies his widow is entitled to a widow's pension. There is no Member of this House who could go on to the platform and justify the anomalies of the Bill. There is no Member who could justify cutting the benefit of the married women and making the unemployed pay, in order to put National Health Insurance societies on a proper footing. There are other ways in which the Government might have dealt with this question. It would be out of order on the Third Reading to go into that matter, but there are many ways in which the Government could have dealt with the question, and if ever the Government have to approach this question of National Health Insurance again I hope they will not try to deal with it merely by making the poorest people suffer while leaving the societies, as they are to-day, some rich and some poor. I hope that instead they will consider seriously reorganising the whole of the health insurance societies into a national unit and making the rich societies help the poor societies.

Mr. HOWARD: I intervene only to take exception to some words which were used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). He said that this Bill was part of the general Government plan of national economy, and he went on to twit those Conservative Members who are forming themselves into voluntary economy committees to try to bring down national expenditure, with their attitude towards this question. In his condemnation of Members on this side of the House he tried to create a prejudice
against us by suggesting that we were attempting to take, for the benefit of the national finances, contributions that were due to the people who come under the health insurance scheme. That is entirely untrue and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. The fact is that when an insurance scheme can no longer, by its own funds, continue to pay the benefits which it has previously been accustomed to pay, then that scheme if it is to retain its actuarial basis must be amended. What we insist upon from the back benches is that all these insurance schemes must in the future remain upon a purely insurance basis.
There is no excuse for introducing an insurance scheme at all, if you are going to allow it to pass on to a charity basis. Why not be honest and place the poor people of the country directly upon the public assistance committees. Alter the law, if you wish, so that national aid shall be given to them, but do not pretend that you are introducing an insurance scheme when you know that, in fact, your scheme is not based on insurance principles. We urge that a businesslike outlook should be adopted in these matters in the future and that we should do just as hon. Members opposite do, when they are administering insurance schemes of their own, whether through their friendly societies, their co-operative societies, or their trade unions. They take good care in that case to see that the balance sheet is kept in the right way. During the last two years you have seen men who have paid for 40 years into superannuation schemes belonging to the trade unions robbed of their subscriptions. Men who in their old age are no longer able to earn their livelihood, and who expected to get 12s. 6d. a week, for which they have paid and made sacrifices all their lives, are now seeing that superannuation whittled down to a paltry 5s. or 6s., because hon. Members opposite can no longer afford to pay back what those men have previously contributed.
Why do you do that? Where has the money gone? Did you administer your funds as you should have done? It ill betides you to condemn the Government, when you fail so ignominiously to provide full benefits yourselves. Every cooperative society in the country during the last few years has been reducing the wages of its workers, because you can no
longer make the balance-sheet appear as it should do, and I urge upon hon. Members opposite not to throw stones, as they themselves are now living in glass houses. After two years of government by hon. Members opposite, we saw some of these same economies introduced when they found that they could no longer balance their Budget, and I am always sorry to find that when Labour Members occupy the Opposition benches their whole attitude seems to change. They have lost that position of responsibility, and then they go out preaching the gospel and promising all sorts of things which they know in their own hearts they cannot carry out.
The hon. Member who has just sat down mentioned that malingering was not taking place. I defy any Member on the benches, opposite who represents, as I do, a working-class constituency, to get up and say that there is no malingering in regard to this Health Insurance Fund on the part of married women, or to say that doctors do not give certificates unless they are fully assured that there is real sickness. Every hon. Member opposite who makes such a statement knows that it is mere humbug. Talk in any workshop you wish. I was talking only to-day to some working men in a workshop, and I had a trade unionist saying to me: "I know old Dr. So-and-So gives away certificates to the women as they walk in without inquiring at all. All that they have got to do is to ask for a certificate, and they get it." It is part of the National Health Insurance Scheme that the doctor's fortune has been made by the method through which he is paid. You all know that the doctor who can get 1,100 insured persons on has register—

Mr. LOGAN: Would the hon. Member dare mention that outside this House in respect of any doctor?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Why not mention that doctor outside, where it could be challenged?

Mr. HOWARD: I am speaking from personal knowledge, and every Member opposite is as conversant as I am with these facts, that the doctors to-day who have 1,100 patients or insured persons on their panel have a guaranteed income; and by the method which we have adopted, which allows a panel patient to transfer himself from one doctor to
another, we have placed a temptation in the way of the doctor which forces him, in order to retain his panel patients, to be as lenient as possible. It is common talk in the workshops to-day. "If your doctor does not give you a certificate, you transfer to So-and-so; he is 'cushy.'" You all know that.

Miss RATHBONE: Why does not the hon. Member support a national benefit service?

Mr. HOWARD: The hon. Member knows that these are the facts of the case. In my constituency working women come to me and give instances of the malingering that is going on. If we are going to be responsible for the national finances, we ought not to talk with our tongue in our cheek, but admit that malingering goes on; and it is up to everyone of us, irrespective of votes or of the retention of our seats, to see that we do our best to put down this evil. It is the only way in which we shall retain the solvency of any fund. Wholesale malingering is going on, and hon. Members opposite know that it is common talk among working-class women, married women especially, that "Mrs. So-and-so has got two pensions." For a quarter of an hour last Friday week I was trying to get from a person who came before me what she meant by two pensions. After investigation, it came to this, that she was drawing a widow's pension and a disablement pension, a total income of 17s. 6d.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Shame, much too much!

Mr. HOWARD: I would remind the hon. Member that it is not a question of how much a person can live on; it is a question whether that person is drawing upon a fund to which he or she is not morally entitled. If by drawing upon a fund you are preventing people who are genuinely sick from obtaining their benefit, you are committing a crime against your fellows. In any compulsory insurance scheme, whether unemployment or health, it will always be necessary to review the scheme in detail from time to time. The trade unions have always the safeguard against malingerers that they can expel them from their societies, but under a national compulsory scheme everyone is forced to become a member. You have only good members in your in-
stitutions. Only last Monday I came into contact with a trade union which had set up a special committee to expel members whom they regarded as a handicap upon the funds of the society. There is no consideration for humanity when trade unions are dealing with unemployed; their one idea is solvency.

Mr. BUCHANAN: What union is it?

Mr. HOWARD: I submit—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members might be left to make their speeches in their own 'way.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. Member is making an allegation against a responsible union, and we ask him in courtesy to name the union. I take it that when he does not name the union, he does not know the name.

Mr. HOWARD: I am not prepared—

Mr. BUCHANAN: Because there is no such union.

Mr. HOWARD: I am not prepared to give a name because what I have stated is a matter that affects a committee of a trade union, and unions are jealous that their committee matters should not be made public.

Mr. BUCHANAN: That is very lame.

Mr. HOWARD: The hon. Member knows very well that the action I have cited does frequently take place among trade unions. I submit that it is necessary that we should give this Bill its Third Reading in order that the contributors to the National Health Insurance Fund shall have a guarantee that in future the benefits which they expect to receive will be there whenever they unfortunately need them.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: Like the vast majority of hon. Members I have spent the whole time during the Committee stage and the Report stage in listening, but I feel compelled to say a word or two on Third Reading. I shall not follow the hon. Member for South Islington (Mr. Howard) in his wide ramifications both inside and outside the com-
pass of a Third Reading Debate, but I would like to make some reference to certain remarks he made. No one on this side of the House takes any objection to a sound and solvent insurance fund, every one of us believes that such a thing is a necessity; but we do take objection to the statement that vast numbers of insured people are malingerers. We come from industrial districts and we have never yet met these vast numbers of malingerers, but even if there were this Bill does not even attempt to deal with them. All it does is to say that certain sections of insured persons, whether malingerers or not, shall suffer certain reductions of benefit. We think that malingerers ought to be dealt with, and dealt with effectively. We have put that view forward on many occasions on the Committee stage and the Report stage, but our argument has always been that this Bill makes no attempt to deal with the malingerer.
With the object of the Bill we are in entire agreement. We think the fund ought to be solvent. Our objection is to the method taken in order to make it so. We are told the only way to secure solvency is by increasing contributions or reducing benefits, and the Minister tells us that in addition we might deal with loose certification. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) called a colleague of mine to task because he ventured to speak at some length on the question of loose certification, but in documents issued in connection with this Bill mention is made of loose certification. I wish the hon. Member for Mile End (Dr. O'Donovan) had heard the last speech. He made a great defence of panel doctors, saying they were not guilty of loose certification. He was roused very much by the speech of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). I wonder to what extent he would have been roused by the speech of the hon. Member for South Islington, which came from the Tory benches. What we feel about this Bill is that a very wrong policy has been pursued by the Government. They have singled out a certain section of insured people to bear sacrifices, whereas we say that if sacrifices are necessary they ought to have been asked from the whole body of insured persons. It is most unfair to say that because married women happen to have suffered from sickness more than
any other classes of insured people that they should bear the brunt of the loss of benefit. We from the industrial districts, and especially Lancashire, know that married women play as great a part as men in many industries. It is not a ease of married women filling up certain vacancies. In the cotton industry they find just as much employment as men, and to say to them that because they are married and because a certain section of married women have been heavy on the funds, they are to be singled out for this kind of treatment, is most unfair.
Further, we ask on what grounds they have been singled out? Surely it will not be suggested that they can best bear the burden, that they are the best-off section of the insured population. What about the rest of the nation? We heard much in the last election about equality of sacrifice; that was to be the principle on which they acted when distributing the burden among the various sections of the nation. How does it work out? You are singling out one section of the insured population for special treatment and penalties. Our feeling is that it would have been far better if we had carried on, facing this deficit and making this fund solvent from the national Exchequer. I know we should be told from the Tory benches that that would cut across their great principle of economy.
After all, this fund is not solvent, and is not the best thing to see how it can be made solvent without placing further heavy burdens on the weakest shoulders? It is not asking too much to say that this burden should not be placed on a section of the nation but on the whole nation. Sooner or later that must be done. Unemployment is increasing, and as it increases the solvency of the fund will be further endangered. Sooner or later this House will be compelled to take steps to make the fund solvent by the Exchequer increasing its contribution. We must remember that what is behind this trouble is that the Exchequer contribution has been lessened. That commenced the difficulty, and it has led to insolvency. Our main objection to the Bill is that it places the burden of securing solvency on the weakest shoulders. We ask that this Bill should be voted against on these grounds. It is the wrong way of making the fund solvent and we think the sound way is for the whole nation and the
National Exchequer to share the burden in order to secure solvency.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am very sorry the hon. Member for Islington South (Mr. T. Howard), who made such an attack on trade unions and panel doctors, is not in his place. The hon. Member talked about how many doctors he knew who had done this or that. Whatever the faults that they possess, the working people among whom they live understand them, and while it may be that here and there you find a doctor who gives a certificate easily, on the other side you have doctors who exercise what might be described as very harsh treatment. While there may be one doctor who is lenient, there is another doctor on the other side to balance. When the country places a public duty on a set of men you have various types who exercise these functions in different ways. I do not want to discuss Unemployment Insurance, but even there one knows that there are judges who carry out the law extremely leniently, while other judges are extremely harsh, and between them you have a set who take a middle course. The doctoring profession is not different from any other profession. I speak with some knowledge, for I have worked with them, and I say on behalf of the doctors that in these difficult times they carry out their public duty in a very fair manner, and I am proud to say that many poor people count them among their best friends.
I resent the suggestions made to-night by a back bench Tory and occasionally a Front Bench Labour Member against the doctors. References have been made to doctors looking for patients, but the position in regard to the ordinary doctor in the poorer districts is that he is carrying out his public duties in a public-spirited fashion. The Under-Secretary for Scotland will not challenge me when I say that he is one of the few men who have improved by association with the Government. He knows that in the poorer districts the Poor Law system has to some extent broken down with regard to doctoring; and if it were not for the panel doctor, who attends not merely the panel patient for his 9s., but the whole family, most of whom are not panel patients, the whole system would break down. The doctors' generosity towards the poor very often amazes me.
Hon. Members who say that they know of doctors who do certain things and follow certain practices, are making a serious charge. If they know of such things, they are performing a very sorry function in not taking action against the doctors in question. Everyone has a remedy, if he knows that a doctor is doing things for private gain and against the public weal. It is not the duty of such persons to come to the House of Commons and make unsupported statements and to applaud statements of that kind when they are made, but it is their duty to go to the proper place, to the Minister of Health, and to make their statement in writing in order that the doctors who are doing those things against the common weal should face a tribunal. They should make their charges in proper fashion. It is not sufficient for ill-considered statements to be made here. Doctors who are on trial should be given the opportunities that you give to the ordinary murderer or criminal. [Interruption.] I have no doubt that the doctors would be only too glad to produce evidence to meet the charges made against them.
I turn from that to the other remarks that were made about trade unions. It is perfectly true that trade unions are reducing benefits. I am the chairman of a union that has paid out huge sums of money since 1921. We have now reached a stage in which we have not a penny piece to pay out. We have asked the members who are at work to pay 3s. out of a wage of about £3, and they have responded with magnificent generosity. Officials have reduced their own wages, and those of us who are not officials have worked voluntarily without a penny reward. To compare trade union funds with a State fund is not a fair comparison. I dismiss the matter because I am certain that the Minister would never dream that a trade union fund, with sick and superannuation benefits and with a membership 30 per cent. of which is unemployed, could be compared with a State fund.
If the State was faced with the same problem as a trade union that, taken as a whole, was bankrupt, and if this nation was facing poverty, we would say: "Yes, the nation must suffer, but let the suffering be equal. That is to say, do not make two or three people suffer, or a comparative few who happen to come within the
ambit of National Health Insurance, but let the nation start with its rich, its holders of War Loan interest and its civil servants, and then let it go right down the line." Just imagine! If I had the reserves that the Government have in the way of War Loan interest, etc., would I ever dream of letting my members be attacked in their sick pay? The great charge against the Government is that it has great sources of wealth and that, instead of attacking this source, it attacks the aged and the sick and the maternity benefits of the poorest of the poor.
11.0 p.m.
This Bill deals with five heads: married women, single women, maternity benefit, medical benefit and old age and widows' pensions. It covers the grants to all those people. The only defence put up is that its provisions will make a solvent fund; there is no defence for it on humanitarian grounds; it is just a question of making this particular fund balance. I should have thought that the Government, before attacking these poor people, would have examined the whole question of the relationship of insurance. Is the State making a proper contribution towards the fund? Is the State's contribution based on an insurance principle? The great mass of the Members of this House—I do not say this in criticism of them—have never examined the State's relation to the general finance of this scheme. Is the State's contribution at a time when unemployment is low to be the same as its contribution at a time when unemployment is high? Has not the time come for a revision of the State's contribution towards this fund, and of the lives covered by health insurance, in order to see whether the £5 a week basis which was fixed before the War, when wages were less than they are now, should not be increased to bring within the scope of the scheme "lives" that could help to contribute to the decent maintenance of their less fortunate brothers? Those questions have never been examined, and, before the very poor are attacked, this House has a right to examine and explore every avenue that is possible.
My indictment of this Bill is that it makes these poor people suffer, and, in addition, it imposes a burden upon local rates. As to the withdrawal of medical benefits, it is well known that that can only be met by two or three methods.
Either the doctor must do the work without pay, or, if he does not, the Poor Law will have to do it. If he does it without payment, he is carrying a State burden; if the Poor Law does it, the nation, through the Poor Law, has to pay. I hope I am not too critical of my Labour colleagues, but I would like them to answer this question. It seems to be suggested that there is some magic way by which the fund can be kept solvent without reducing benefits, but I cannot see how that can be done administratively. In my view, the administration now is too severe, and I would make an earnest appeal to them not to ask for stricter supervision. To my mind, supervision now is carried to excess in its zeal to knock people off. I would ask them to depart from that principle. Frankly, I would sooner see the care of the sick undertaken leniently than harshly; I would sooner take the risk of some people getting something extra than see the shocking harshness that can be exercised. I have in mind at this moment cases in which there is excessive harshness.
I do not mind very much what the Tories say in connection with this Bill. The Tory philosophy is the philosophy of the Bill. But the Prime Minister was reared, not in strict Marxian Socialism, but in a Socialism that was supposed to be a benevolent kind of sentimental Socialism. When the Prime Minister took his place in public life, he stood for things which are different from those of this Measure. He never stood, as this Measure stands, for making a fund like this a solvent fund. He stood for a non-contributory system. He used to argue and write about these things, and his place in public life is due in a large measure to the fact that place and power were given to him by these poor people, and he now finds himself at the head of a Government which attacks them. That, I think, is a terrible betrayal of all the past that he has ever possessed.
My colleagues and I have agreed to say nothing that would offend anyone on either side. It is true that we got into conflict, but I was the person attacked. We set out to try to get one or two minor concessions. We argued the case of the woman whose husband was incapacitated for work. We tried to get the man who appeared before a medical board paid until the day of the notification of the
result. We have pleaded and argued, but the result is nothing. Looking at the miseries that I represent and at the hours and days that I spend with my people, I feel annoyed about this. These people are almost bereft of a friend. They have little faith in politics—little faith in anything. The only thing they possess is the certainty that one day death will claim them.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: We have now come to the end of another chapter in the history of this great scheme of national health insurance. I think the Minister did me an injustice earlier in the evening, though not deliberately. I understand he made a statement to the effect that he was astonished that I declared that we on this side of the House would have accepted the new Clause proposed by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). That is not what I said. I said we objected to Clause 3. We have objected to the reductions in benefit all along the line. The new Clause of the hon. Member for South Croydon would be less harsh in its effect upon women and we preferred it only as an alternative to Clause 3. I think any Member of the House who wanted this problem solved would prefer the new Clause to the Clause in the Bill.
This is the first Government since the National Health scheme was instituted which has reduced the benefits of the insured population. If we were on that side of the House and dared even to suggest it, we should hear about it at the next General Election. I should very much like the Minister and the Department to take note of one thing that is done by this Bill. Those who administer the scheme are not at all happy over the fact that the Ministry, whenever they are in difficulty, turn round and postpone the redemption of the reserve values, in order to keep within the finance of the scheme. We know that that happens under this Bill, and if the policy of the Ministry is carried through, the postponement of the redemption will some day come back as a boomerang on the scheme, and in my view it will destroy the whole basis of the scheme. In my view, too, it is not right to alter the actuarial basis of the scheme by postponing the redemption of the reserve values in the way in which it is done now.
Let me pass to something else. We are objecting now, and I think we ought to object on Third Reading, to the claim made on many occasions, I think, by both the Ministers in charge of this Bill, that they are doing a good turn to the unemployed by this Bill. Let me put it to them thus once again. I deny that they are putting the unemployed, under this Bill, in as favourable a position as the unemployed would have been in if the prolongation scheme had been carried forward from year to year. Let me put it in another form. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman about this prolongation scheme has been this: The prolongation scheme would have had to come to an end at the end of this year, and consequently we are doing a good service to the unemployed by offering them the terms in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that there is no Government in this country, either a National Government, a Liberal Government or a Tory Government—a Labour Government would not do it anyhow, of course—no Government of any political colour, which would dare to let the unemployed down by not prolonging this insurance scheme at the end of the year. I am sure of that.
An hon. Member talked about a trade union. Let me tell you what has happened with this scheme. The first blow at the financial stability of this scheme was given by the one party which ought to have been the last to do it, and that is the State. In 1911, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) established this scheme, he put into Statute law a certain contribution from the State to the scheme. In 1926 a Tory Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) took from this scheme a sum equal to £2,750,000 per annum, and, with the interest which is calculable upon that reduction, the approved societies have lost the equivalent of almost £30,000,000 up to date. The two other parties have kept their contracts. Let me pay a tribute to the employers; they have kept their contract too. The employee is bound to keep his contract; he is compelled to. The employers have never yet attempted to break their contract. But the Tory Government of 1926 broke its contract,
and delivered the first effective blow against the finances of this scheme.
Let me say something else. This scheme has suffered blow after blow; and the policy of the Tory party is as clear as daylight. It can be found in the provisions of this Bill. The policy is this: that in effect, so far as they can do it without showing their hands too clearly, they are determined to reduce the State grant to this scheme in such a way that the scheme shall be self-supporting in the end. Hon. Members know full well that the State contribution to this scheme was £10,000,000. It has now been reduced to £6,000,000, in spite of the fact that the insured population has increased all along the line. I say therefore that the Government really cannot convince the public that they are doing the unemployed, at any rate, a good turn in this connection.
The last point I want to make is this. The Government are thrusting upon the unemployed, who have been out of work for years, and partly upon the funds of the approved societies, the financial maintenance of this unemployment in order to keep them in pension rights.
I want to repeat this point to the right hon. Gentleman. The State, by introducing a contributory pension scheme some years ago, relieved itself of the payment of millions of pounds per annum by way of not being called upon to pay an old age pension at 70 years of age. In fact, as the years go by we shall find ourselves in the position, rightly or wrongly, that the vast majority of the old people of this country will come under the contributory pension scheme, and only a few will be left drawing a pension without having paid any contribution at all. The State has gained, I repeat, millions of pounds every year by that transaction. I should have imagined, therefore, that the Exchequer ought to have come to the aid of those old people a little more generously than they have done. In spite of all I have said, if I know anything about these schemes—and I have tried to study them—this Scheme after all is the best insurance scheme in the world. I wish the Government of the day would be as loyal to their promises in respect of the Scheme as are the other two parties to it. The right hon. Gentleman has tried to make it appear in the Debates that the Government are doing this,
and, in fact, when he has been speaking about reducing the benefits to the married women, he has tried his level best to make us believe that he is doing them a good turn by reducing their benefits. I am not quite clever enough for that, but one thing is obvious. It will be registered against this Government that they are the first Government actually to reduce the statutory benefits of the insured population.

Sir H. YOUNG: The House has now given its deservedly close attention over a three days' Debate to this Bill, and the Debate has been marked by at least two very interesting characteristics. The first on which I wish to comment is the extraordinary benefit which the House derived from the element of competition between the two sections of the Opposition. Either taken alone might not be considerable enough in numbers, alas, to achieve successfully their purpose, but the result of the competition between the two has been that which competition always produces, of so greatly stimulating activity as to provide the House with the effective opposition which it desires. I notice another interesting circumstance, that the size of the Opposition has illustrated the well-known chemical law: the smaller the mass the greater the energy. The maximum of energy resides in the atom. I do not venture to specify which of the hon. Members now seated below the Gangway most closely corresponds to that description. Another most interesting and encouraging feature of our Debate, if I may say so in a spirit of earnestness, has been the extraordinarily valuable contribution made to our discussion, upon a Bill which closely concerns the interests of the women, by the women Members of the House, who have shown a knowledge of the subject and a capacity for close reasoning which augur well for the future of our Parliament.
As regards the criticisms which have been advanced upon the Bill, we are told that it is a Bill for restriction. That is the main issue between ourselves and the Opposition, because we maintain that it is not a Bill of restriction, but a Bill for preservation. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) said that it offers no benefits to women, but reduces their benefits. Yes, it may be that you do find yourselves in a situation in which it is a positive ad-
vantage to reduce insurance benefits, and that situation is this: If the alternative is that you have to confront a situation in which there will be no benefits at all, it is a greater kindness and a greater service to perform to the members of the insurance system to preserve for them the future of their scheme by adapting it to the passing circumstances of our national needs.
Upon other aspects of the Debate, which have occupied very prominently the attention of the House to-night, I will not enter, because it is unprofitable to enter. In particular, it is unprofitable for this House to indulge in heated Debate as to whether or not there is a large extent of malingering among insured persons, or whether or not the insurance doctors are doing their duty by the scheme. On neither of these matters will I advance any charges or any criticism. I believe that the growth of sickness experience is the result, of social forces which are practically irresistible—the social forces of bad times. As regards the medical profession, if there is an improvement to be gained in administration it is not in the direction of correcting faults cither of honesty or of efficiency among the medical profession—I do not believe there are such—but in the direction of more exact and higher standards of administration, which are more in accordance with the needs of the times.
I come to another charge against this Bill which, I think, must have been made in a moment of irresponsibility by an occupant of the Front Bench opposite. Failing to find any grounds at the moment for criticising the Bill for what it does, he criticised the Government for what he thought they would like to do in regard to reducing the State grant. I find it difficult to meet the charge that some critic supposes the Government might like to do something which they do not propose to do. Let me take this opportunity of making it as clear as day, in order that there may be no possibilities of misrepresentation, that this Bill deprives the National Health Insurance scheme of not one penny of public money which might otherwise have gone towards that scheme. The Bill takes no single penny of money away from National Health Insurance. As I have said before—and it is important to make this point clear—the Bill does not reduce
the funds available for National Health Insurance; but what it does do is to effect a redistribution in order to ensure the solvency of the scheme.
Hon. Members opposite have paid lip-service to the solvency of National Health Insurance. One observes that they are always in favour of solvency, but always in favour of solvency in some other way. Therefore, one is bound to conclude that any method proposed for the attainment of solvency will be opposed by hon. Members opposite. It is of greater value to be prepared to take the obvious measures for the maintenance of the solvency of the fund than to pay lip-service to the cause of solvency, and to oppose all practical measures propounded for its attainment. The measures by which it is proposed to achieve solvency in this Bill are well known to the House.
Another criticism advanced against the Bill is the method by which the necessary redistribution is made; the lowering of the benefits of married women in preference to single women and of single women in preference to men; the bigger proportion from the married women and the second largest contribution from the single women. That distribution is based on the simplest, most obvious and most unassailable of all principles of insurance, that contributions should be related to benefits and benefits to contributions. If any hon. Member disagrees with that principle then the actual methods proposed in the Bill are not relevant to him, but if he accepts the principle that contributions should be related to benefits, and that you can have no insurance scheme on any other bask, then he is bound to follow step by step the methods proposed, because it is the simple fact that the cause of the deficit is in the first place, the higher sickness experience of married women and if benefits are to be related to contributions then the biggest reduction must be made in the benefits of married women. The next chief factor in the deficit is the unexpected high sickness experience of all women, including single women, and therefore if contributions are to be related to benefits the next principal contribution must come by a reduction in the benefits of single women. It is impossible to escape from that conclusion on the basis, which is the only basis consistent with a contributory
insurance scheme, that contributions are to be related to benefits.
But, it is said, why are you making any discrimination between women and men? The reason for that is based in the very ground work of insurance. For health insurance, women and particularly married women are a risk of a different nature to men. The difference is due to the natural difference in the economic status of women, which finds its seat in the very roots of society. A married woman is not alone in the industrial world, where livings are earned. She is a member of a partnership; she has someone to fall back upon, which a single woman has not, and which other persons have not, and it is for that reason and the consequences which spring from it that it is impossible to regard women as a similar risk in insurance to men. The whole tendency of our insurance scheme in the process of evolution from good to better has been to segregate women in their own separate societies and thus secure for them the full measure of their rights in insurance.
11.30 p.m.
I have heard a phrase used in connection with this question of the relation of contributions to pensions, which seems to me to carry the exaggeration of language to the limits of what one would conceive possible. I have heard this Bill spoken of as a Bill which will rob people in insurance of their pension rights. I have dealt with this matter before in debate but, lest misconception should get abroad, let me deal with it once again, even at this late period in our discussions. The facts of the situation are these. Already, unemployed persons who are being continued in insurance under the prolongation scheme, have, in typical cases, exhausted the pension rights to which they are entitled by their contributions. Nevertheless, it was recognised, in the preparation of this Measure, that the pension right is that which is of most social value and of most importance to the welfare of the unemployed; that its loss would be a most severe loss to the unemployed and that everything which could be done, to keep the unemployed still insured for their pension rights, should be done, within the limit of what was consistent with the maintenance of the solvency and contributory character of the scheme. That has been done. It has been done by the continuance of the unemployed
in their pension rights for three years after the expiration of the period at which they would, normally, under the existing law go out of insurance altogether. They have been continued in their pension rights until the end of 1935. One object which we had in view was to give an opportunity for times to improve and enable the unemployed to secure renewal of their pension rights in the normal and profitable way, by re-entry into employment. We were not content with that step. The matter has been carried still further. We have pushed on the age limit at the bottom and taken part of the little margin available to us to bring the age limit down at the other end. Just as the unemployed formerly, as long as they attained the age of 60, in insurance, were continued until they were 65—and safe—so, under the present provision, we have used that little margin to which I have referred to bring that age limit of 60 down to 58¼.
The matter does not rest there. We have carried it still further, by an extremely important new provision, which is in the nature of a concession as regards re-entry into insurance. We have said: "Even when you can no longer, consistent with the retention of any vestige of a contributory basis for the scheme, continue rights which have been long since exhausted, there is something which you can do, without involving your scheme in too great financial peril. You can make it possible for one who has gone out of insurance to come back on easier terms than those provided for in the existing Law." The basis of re-entry into insurance, according to the original scheme, was the fulfilment of a condition of 104 weeks of employment and related contributions. That was supposed to be the minimum when the scheme was originally passed. Taking advantage of further experience, we now propose to reduce that period from 104 weeks to 26 weeks, thus making it easier for those who have gone out of insurance to get back again.
Having described to the House those provisions in relation to insurance rights, and particularly pension insurance rights, I leave to the judgment of the House, without the least hesitation as to what that judgment will be, whether or not there has been in this case any robbing of pension rights. On the average
the unemployed man who, at the end of the year 1935, will lose his insurance rights to pension benefits, if he does do so and, if there is no improvement in the meantime, will find himself in this case, that he will have had 10 years of insurance for this important and valuable right to pensions—old age, widows' and orphans' pensions—and for those 10 years of insurance he will have paid 2½ years of contributions. I submit to the House with confidence whether it is possible to go further in the way of stretching things in order to make it easier for the unemployed and yet retain the character of the scheme as a contributory scheme and the solvency of the fund.
The whole matter of the Bill reduces itself to this: Are we prepared to maintain the National Health Insurance scheme as a solvent, contributory scheme, or are we prepared to let it go downhill, and fall, and lose those two characteristics? I have no hesitation, with the experience that this country has had, with the knowledge that it now has as to the present conditions, in presenting to the House this Measure, which will ensure the maintenance of the scheme with those two characteristics of a contributory basis and solvency. Let me ask the House to consider what would happen if it came to any other decision, if the counsels of hon. Members opposite were to prevail, and on this and every other occasion, whenever and difficulty occurred, we were always prepared to overcome it by omitting all painful effort and by making up the gap with a grant from the Exchequer. [Interruption.] It is impossible to combine the two. You must be prepared to do the one or the other. You must be prepared to maintain the character of the scheme as it was founded, as a contributory scheme, or you must be prepared to let the growth of Exchequer grants overgrow the whole structure of the scheme, and in that case you will be unable to maintain the contributions to the scheme.
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have people maintained by free grants from the Exchequer and, at the same time, ask other persons, getting the same benefits, to buy them for themselves by their own contributions. If you begin to go down that slope, of taking refuge ever with the Exchequer grant, you must be prepared to find, in a very much
shorter time than you would expect, the contribution income of the whole scheme falling away to nothing, and you will have to maintain the whole of the health benefits and pensions system of the country simply as a matter of free Exchequer grants, without any contributory effort at all. There is no half way house. You must stop it at the outset, as we are asking you to do to-night, or you must go the whole way of substituting a State relief service for a contributory scheme.
But is that the choice? No, that is not the position in which we find ourselves at the present time. What is the course of events? Suppose you throw this burden on the Exchequer in ever increasing volume. To increase the burdens of the Exchequer so as to provide benefits under the National Health Insurance scheme means increased taxation; increased taxation—do we not know it now?—means increased unemployment; increased unemployment means increased inability on the part of the contributors to the scheme to maintain their contributions; and so you enter once more into that miserable vicious circle of which, surety, we have had enough in the past.

Now is an opportunity presented to us to prevent ourselves from entering that vicious circle. The contributory principle will surely work to-day. It is not merely an abstract ideal. It is not a mere phrase. As I understand it, it is this: that by this mechanism of insurance we can stimulate some of the finest qualities of the race, and stimulate people to care for their own future and fate. It is our duty to enable them to experience the benefits of the admirable stimulus of an insurance scheme. It is our duty when we see these elements in our national scheme of Health Insurance threatened, not through the fault of any man, but by a turn in the national tide for the worse, to make the effort which is needed in time, to confront the painful effort which is necessary in this House, to confront the painful necessity of explaining it to the country; and in the discharge of that effort to meet with the reward that in future times 17,000,000 of the contributors to this fund will thank the House for what it has done to preserve the solidity of the fund.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 43.

Division No. 256.]
AYES.
 [11.42 p.m. 


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Goff, Sir Park


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Gower, Sir Robert


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Chalmers, John Rutherford
Graves, Marjorie


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Clayton, Dr. George C.
Greene, William P. C.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Atholl, Duchess of
Colville, John
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)


Atkinson, Cyril
Conant, R. J. E.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Cook, Thomas A.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Cooke, Douglas
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Balniel, Lord
Cooper, A. Duff
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Copeland, Ida
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cranborne, Viscount
Hales, Harold K.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bateman, A. L.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Harbord, Arthur


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hartington, Marquess of


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hartland, George A.


Borodale, Viscount
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Harvey, Majors. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bossom, A. C.
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Boulton, W. W.
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Drewe, Cedric
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Duggan, Hubert John
Hornby, Frank


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Horsbrugh, Florence


Broadbent, Colonel John
Eastwood, John Francis
Howard, Tom Forrest


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Eden, Robert Anthony
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Burnett, John George
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Jamieson, Douglas


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Ker, J. Campbell
Ormiston, Thomas
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Pearson, William G.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Kimball, Lawrence
Peat, Charles U.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Knebworth, Viscount
Petherick, M.
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Knox, Sir Alfred
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Law, sir Alfred
Pike, Cecil F.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Leckie, J. A.
Potter, John
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Stevenson, James


Levy, Thomas
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Stones, James


Liddall, Walter S.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Storey, Samuel


Lindsay. Noel Ker
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Stourton. Hon. John J.


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Strauss, Edward A.


Llewellin, Major John J.
Ramsden, E.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Rankin, Robert
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Rea, Walter Russell
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Mabane, William
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Sutcliffe, Harold


MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


McKie, John Hamilton
Remer, John R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


McLean, Major Alan
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Robinson, John Roland
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Rosbotham, S. T.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Ross, Ronald D.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Runge, Norah Cecil
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
White, Henry Graham


Milne, Charles
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Salmon, Major Isidore
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Mitcheson, G. G.
Salt, Edward W.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Wise, Alfred R.


Moreing, Adrian C.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Womersley, Walter James


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Morrison, William Shephard
Savery, Samuel Servington
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Muirhead, Major A. J.
Scone, Lord
Wragg, Herbert


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)



Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Sir George Penny and Mr. Blindell.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hicks, Ernest George
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, George Henry
Milner, Major James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jenkins, Sir William
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Price, Gabriel


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kirkwood, David
Thorne, William James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lunn, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Grundy, Thomas W.
McEntee, Valentine L.



Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Duncan Graham.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — NAVY, ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1930.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain Bourne in the Chair.]

"1. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1931, that the aggregate expenditure on Navy Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services, and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services over the net Expenditure is £168,013 19s. 9d., namely:

SCHEDULE.


No. of Vote.
Navy Services, 1930, Votes
Deficits.
Surpluses.


Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.
Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated
Receipts.
 Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.
Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated
Receipts.




£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Wages, etc., of Officers, Sea-men, Boys, and Royal Marines, and Civilians employed on Fleet Services.
—
—
49,376
18
6
 4,397
15
10


2
Victualling and Clothing Services.
—
—
24,908
14
0
5,811
0
2


3
Medical Establishments and
—
16,474
16
8
15,170
8
11
—


4
Fleet Air Arm
—
—
—
—


5
Educational Services
—
1,914
19
3
8,392
18
9
—


6
Scientific Services
—
2,200
6
9
12,935
11
7
—


7
Royal Naval Reserves
3,685
3
2
—
—
37
9
11


8
Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:















Sec. 1. Personnel
310
7
2
—
—
8,163
8
8



Sec. 2. Matériel
—
65,030
1
3
29,176
18
4
—



Sec. 3. Contract Work
—
—
23,519
4
9
16,553
4
8


9
Naval Armaments
—
67,724
2
3
63,899
13
1
—


10
Works, Buildings, and Repairs.
—
—
34,026
10
4
4,284
8
11


11
Miscellaneous Effective Services.
—
—
11,581
17
2
5,160
18
8


12
Admiralty Office
—
—
6,855
0
11
2,959
14
3


13
Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Officers.
—
—
4,835
15
11
1,492
0
2


14
Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Men.
2,411
6
9
8,358
10
8
—
—


15
Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities.
1,306
6
1
—
—
313
1
1



Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned.
5,032
12
10
—
—
—




12,745
16
0
151,702
16
10
283,289
12
3
49,173
0
4




Total Deficits £164,418 12 10
Total Surpluses £332,462 12 7




Net Surplus £168,013 19 9

"II. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1931, that the

£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
…
332,462
12
7


Total Deficits
…
164,448
12
10


Net Surplus
…
£168,013
19
9

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services."

Resolved,
That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[Captain Wallace.]

aggregate Expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown
in the Schedule hereto appended, the net suruplus of the Exchequer Grants for Army Services over the net Expenditure is £427,323 5s. 4d., namely:




£.
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
…
1,323,940
9
9


Total Deficits
…
896,617
4
5


Net Surplus
…
£427,323
5
4

SCHEDULE.


No. of Vote.
Army Services, 1930, Votes
Deficits.
Surpluses.


Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.
Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated
Receipts.
 Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.
Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated
Receipts.




£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Pay, etc., of the Army
—
399,680
6
7
308,073
13
10
—


2
Territorial Army and Reserve Forces.
—
3,317
12
6
140,311
6
4
—


3
Medical Services
—
4,992
17
6
33,807
16
10
—


4
Educational Establishments
—
—
6,173
16
6
9,808
2
7


5
Quartering and Movements
—
26,519
7
11
87,487
15
7
—


6
Supplies, Road Transport, and Remounts.
—
7,285
12
5
364,357
13
9
—


7
Clothing
—
—
1,514
19
1
35,539
4
10


8
General Stores
—
—
100,285
7
8
18,431
11
5


9
Warlike Stores
23,112
5
5
—
—
78,733
10
8


10
Works, Buildings, and Lands
—
16,033
9
3
1,339
19
3
—


11
Miscellaneous Effective Services
65,075
19
5
—
—
 28,049
1
7


12
War Office
—
40
7
5
22,640
13
11
—


13
Half-Pay, Retired Pay, and other Non-effective Charges for Officers.
—
141,305
18
11
85,198
15
4
—


14
Pensions and other Non-effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-commissioned Officers, Men, and others.
22,473
3
6
182,109
12
11
—
—


15
Civil Superannuation, Compensation, and Gratuities.
—
100
0
0
2,187
0
7
—


—
Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned.
4,570
10
8
—
—
—




115,231
19
0
781,385
5
5
153,378
18
8
170,561
11
1




Total Deficits £896,617 4 5
Total Surpluses £1,323,940 9 9




Net Surplus £427,323 5 4

"III. Whereas it appears by the Air Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1931, that the aggregate Expenditure on Air Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Air

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services."

Resolved,
That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[Mr. Cooper.]

Services over the net Expenditure is £218,326 16s. 10d., namely:




£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
…
328,687
2
11


Total Deficits
…
110,360
6
1


Net Surplus
…
£218,326
16
10

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Air Services as is necessary to make good

SCHEDULE.


No. of Vote.
Air Services, 1930, Votes
Deficits.
Surpluses.


Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.
Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated
Receipts.
 Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.
Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated
Receipts.




£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Pay, etc., of the Air Force
—
—
176
12
3
19,975
5
6


2
Quartering Stores (except Technical), Supplies, and Transport
—
—
36,174
6
6
1,092
13
0


3
Technical and Warlike Stores (including Experimental and Research Services).
97,676
11
5
—
—
12,619
14
8


4
Works. Buildings, and Lands
—
935
1
8
114,202
17
4
—


5
Medical Services
—
3,793
16
6
11,078
17
8
—


6
Educational Services
—
—
2,097
9
4
4,333
9
8


7
Auxiliary and Reserve Forces
—
—
3,027
15
6
221
12
0


8
Civil Aviation
—
3,009
14
4
63,024
5
10
—


9
Meteorological Services
—
1,184
14
6
10,147
11
5
—



Miscellaneous Effective Services.
—
—
5,811
2
5
2,707
2
2


10
Air Ministry
—
—
9,737
12
7
463
7
7


11
Half-Pay, Pensions, and other Non-effective Services.
—
41
15
1
30,995
7
6
—


—
Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned.
3,718
12
7
—
—
—




101,395
4
0
8,965
2
1
287,273
18
4
41,413
4
7




Total Deficits £110,360 6 1
Total Surpluses £328,687 2 11




Net Surplus £218,326 16 10

Resolutions to be reported upon Friday.

Orders of the Day — BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

the said total deficits on other Grants for Air Services."

Resolved,
That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[Sir P. Sassoon.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Two Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.